Cleaning up

Lately I've been having some trouble with feeling superior. Not generally. Definitely not personally (I don't think I've ever felt that I was "better" than anyone else, whatever that means, maybe better at something but not just better). But lately I've been a bit exasperated with people.

I've sort of talked about it before: reading Facebook statuses and Twitter and feeling like nothing anybody says is worth the time they took to write it, feeling everyone keeps going in circles (myself included) and that there's only negative feelings and no creation; reading papers and reading the same exact things over and over again, repackaged and sold as though they're new. That's part of it.

The other part of it is even worse. I feel like people don't own up.

I've spoken before about how in Spain a lot of people got bursaries who did not really work for them (they got them on an income-assessed basis, which is fine, but they were not required to actually do much in order to keep them). I think I've also written before about my feeling towards humanities (if not, here it is in a nutshell: humanities are fascinating, I love them personally, but I'm not sure someone should be paid to do research on a topic that isn't productive, plus, I'm still not convinced that they require academic study). I feel this same way about pretty much any topic that I could learn by reading on my own and that doesn't produce benefits for society (perhaps maths could be included in this, except in the long term, maths does produce benefits for society). Obviously, a lot of people will say that humanities (and arts) are the only way to reach transcendence or to understand humanity, or life. Although I agree I think this finding is personal, it does not come out of someone else studying humanities or trying to explain these findings.

Anyway, my feelings of superiority are partly borne out of this, and it was necessary to explain it before I get into the question concerning me today.

Yesterday I was reading an article about "mileuristas". "Mileurista" is a term coined in the 2005 by Carolina Algucil in a letter to "El País". In its most basic form, it describes people who make 1000€ per month. In its complexity it is something more: it is a word that describes someone, who after obtaining a degree, maybe a masters, "who has languages" (this is a direct translation from the article) can't find a job that pays more than 1000€. Apparently, this is dramatic, but I think this depends entirely on what moment of your life you're in, I think it might be dramatic if you're 30, but not so much if you're 22 and you've just graduated.

In any case, the article presented the cases of a few people, between 24 and 35 who are "mileuristas". Let me tell you what they all had in common (except one of them, who was working towards a thesis in Biology and was making about 1000€, which is fairly normal for a PhD studentship, it depends, but they're not particularly well paid, after all one is still a doctoral student, it's not considered a full-blown job): they all had humanities degrees. Now, I know a lot of humanities students who are doing well. They finished their degree and are now working in advertising or publishing or (in one case that I am particularly jealous of) journalism. Here's what I don't get: people who finished a degree in Spanish (in Spain) and now complain that they can't find a job "in their field" that pays well. Well, what did you expect? This is not rhetorical: what do these people expect? For one thing, there's already plenty of Spanish students, the top ones get places teaching Spanish in schools (sometimes in Universities). What other jobs are there for people who've studied Spanish and not done too well? Working in publishing? Sure, but let's be honest, the publishing industry is not what it was, and especially not in Spain. Not that many editors are needed. Journalism? Again, sure, but there's only money if you become a regular in one of the big newspapers, and even then it doesn't pay that well. Plus, there's already plenty of journalism students jumping to get these jobs. What did these people expect? I genuinely don't understand.

Now, I'm not saying a degree in humanities is useless. It's not. People who study humanities do incredibly well in a lot of fields, but sometimes I wonder what they consider "their" field. I find this particularly funny when most scientists I know are happy working outside of theirs. Scientists might not admit it, but for most of the ones working in banking or accounting or consulting they are using skills learnt in their degree, but they are not working in their field. I could have gone into a job in banking (if only I could learn to dress professionally, it's really not my thing), and I would have been hired because I graduated with a "science" degree from a "top" UK university, but I wouldn't have been using Biochemistry in banking. I wonder when humanities students will realise that working in "one's" field is something that only academics and incredibly talented people (writers) get to do. That fields are flexible. That jobs are jobs and that for the most part they are not fulfilling. That nothing quite compares to studying.

I suspect part of my feelings come from the fact that we've been sold a lie: "find a job you love and you'll never work a day in your life". I won't pretend to know who first said this, it's been repeated a million times. I know people who like their jobs. I know people who love their jobs. I know few people who would rather be at work than resting at home, or reading a book, or watching a film, or out for drinks with friends. I know even fewer who would keep working at the same rate they currently do if they were rich (a lot of people, particularly in the UK, say they would continue working because "what else are they going to do", but most of them admit that they would probably worry less about their superiors and work at a more relaxed pace).

The other side of things (the other "feeling of superiority") comes from an entirely different corner: yesterday I was reading a blog about people's experiences with academia on tumblr and all I could think was "stop fucking crying and do your job", in other words: "stop complaining and deal with it". Now, I didn't think this about all the posts (a lot of them are about mental health problems being ignored, a HUGE problem in academia both at undergrad and postgrad levels), and some of the cases described are horrifying, but with a lot of them I can't help but thinking "what did you think you were getting into? Did you think it was gonna be easy?". Part of this stems from the fact that I have had (in the past) a relatively difficult experience in a lab, and I got through it, and I do think that sometimes people have to learn to not take things too personally (even though at some level I can understand that this isn't as easy for everyone). Another part, however, does come from people's expectations. I speak to a lot of people in academia because I am working towards a PhD, and I'm often surprised as to the "I thought this would work in x way", especially relating to working hours or workload. The reason I am surprised is not because I necessarily think it's ok, but because you can ask almost any PhD student and they'll tell you PhDs are hard work, there are no fixed hours, and a lot of supervisors expect you to be "on call" 24/7. How did this person get into a PhD without doing research into what the conditions were first? Part of it is simply that we like to complain. I have a very nice life as a PhD, and yes, sometimes the hours are long, but a lot of the time things work out quite nicely in terms of work/life balance (at least for me). But part of it is genuinely people failing to ask questions and realise what they were getting into. The other thing is this idea that because you reported a health problem (it comes about a couple of times in the blog, both times with mental health problems) people are going to care about it. This is, that it is wrong for them to not do anything beyond recognising you are ill and giving you time off. As far as I know, you are doing research for your supervisor. They are not your friend. It is their job to facilitate you getting time off or getting treatment or whatever when you are ill (by signing off on time off, by accepting as true what you and your doctor have told them to be true), but it isn't their job to ask how you're doing, walk on eggshells around you once you're back or provide any sort of personal support beyond the job.

Anyways, I just wanted to get these things off my mind because the fact is at some level I don't like thinking the way I do, but I really, really do think this way.

Finally: said before, but repeat it here: mental health is a serious issue in academia, and it is often ignored or even, in a way, encouraged (a high proportion of people in academia are bipolar and it goes undetected or it is "beneficial" since the academic schedule follows ups and downs in activity that can match the illness, for example). It is the responsibility of all of us who are part of academia to improve this situation, not just for our work colleagues but for ourselves. The levels of stress academia puts on some people are dangerous and can lead to mental breakdowns (schizophrenia, although genetic, has been known to surface after a particularly intense time of stress), and even when they don't, it has been shown that high stress levels (not low stress) make us less productive and (more importantly) more likely to die younger. Look out for it. If there are things your department or University can do to improve the mental health of its students and workers as a whole, fight for it. It is important, it can save lives.

On Bravery

Every day, or almost, I see an article describing women as brave for speaking out about harassment or rape. I myself have been called brave by a good friend because I wrote about the fact that some idiot once grabbed my ass when I was out running.

Apparently, there is a lot of shame and victim-blaming going around, and this is why women don't talk about these things, and why women who do are brave. I say apparently not because the shaming and the victim-blaming isn't true (it obviously is, just look at any of the rapes that have been reported in fraternities in the past year, or at the fact that women are being told to stop drinking to protect themselves), but because I wasn't brave, and a lot of women who I know have spoken up weren't brave (this isn't to say all of them aren't, just that a lot of them are not).

Now, some will say "you don't think you were but actually...". This isn't true. Bravery is the quality of someone ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage. When I spoke up about the fact that a man had grabbed my ass, that wasn't brave: I wasn't ready to face and endure danger or pain, because I didn't expect to endure it. I knew (or at least I felt, and I was proven right) when I spoke up (and I didn't even think of it as speaking up, I was just talking about something that happened to me) that no one I knew would tell me "you were looking for it". That no one would ask "what were you wearing?". Obviously, when I say I "knew", what I mean is that I would have been surprised if anyone had. I wrote about it in my blog and I received positive responses all around. No one said to me "you deserved it". At the time, I didn't tell my parents, because I didn't think it was such a big deal (it pissed me off, and broke my run, but the guy didn't physically hurt me) but mostly because I didn't want to worry them. Not because I was ashamed it had happened. If I thought I was in danger or that it would happen again I would have told them.

It's a good thing that more people are speaking out about rape. It speaks volumes to the work being done by a lot of people to stop invisibilising abuse, but also, in a lot of cases, it reflects a, perhaps small, change in our society: less people are afraid to speak out. More people feel safe enough in their environment to speak out. More safe spaces for people to speak out are becoming available. And this last point is perhaps the most important.

I think more and more women are feeling secure about reporting stranger rape and stranger assault. Although horrible attitudes still exist and victim blaming exists, I honestly believe that things are better in terms of safety for people who speak up than they were two or five years ago, if only because more people are speaking out. However, more needs to be done. Safe spaces need to be created for people who have suffered assault to speak up, specially for people who are in situations where speaking up puts them in danger (people who are suffering abuse from a friend or their partner or someone in their family). Means have to be provided for people who are in these situations to get out of them, but with utmost respect for the victim (I personally think that coping with rape and assault are very personal things, I disagree with people who insist that others have to speak out, although I do wish everyone could speak out and feel safe about speaking out). 

Now, there is a (small?) problem with this. If I get raped, I report my rapist, it goes to trial and he is declared not guilty, and then I continue to call him a rapist, I can be accused (and found guilty of) slander. This is how the justice system works, and I would never agree to change it (a person's life shouldn't be ruined because of a false accusation, even if that means that guilty people get off). However, I somehow feel that even if I can't call out this person publicly, there should be spaces (support groups are the obvious ones, but also personal conversations with friends) where this should be ok... The fact that I think this horrifies. Basically, I'm saying that I can't call someone a rapist in public if this person has been cleared, but I can do so in private if I want. There is a huge problematic in this: when does the private become public? But there is also an element of safety: if I know that someone is a potential danger because that person has hurt me, but declared not guilty, is it really slander to warn my friends off that person? I don't know the answers to this questions. I know what I would do personally, and I know what is fair, but I also know how the law works and that we don't live in an utopian world (or even in a non-utopia where there is a simple way to prove if someone has raped someone else or not).

Bravery is a big word. It means standing up to something, speaking out knowing that by doing so you are putting yourself in danger. I am not brave. Very few people are. And contrary to popular believe, that is not a bad thing. In a perfect world, people would not need to be brave to speak out for social justice, because that would be the norm. In a perfect world, speaking out against social injustice would never put you in danger.