Øystein Gullvåg Holter

At the night of February 5, I went outside to take some shots of the very special snowfall over the last hours (using a small compact camera). Since the temperature was around zero Celsius, the snow had clung to everything like a kind of glaze.  These pictures are taken from my home, first looking towards the street in front, street lights behind the glazed trees, a pedestrian passing at right.

I stand at the top of a snow-glazed veranda staircase.

The snow clings to nearby objects too, like this pine, although with rising temperature the last couple of hours, it has melted a bit, showing only the main part of the the first amazing detail pattern.

The hedge towards our neighbours is glazed.

This night, the temperature is rising, wind blows, and the air remains humid. Misty dots or low level clouds drive through Oslo, with effects like this.

And this.

This is not a fire, in the background – just trees in front of city lights in the snowy night.

Photos (c) Øystein Gullvåg Holter 2013

Camera: Nikon Coolpix s2550

The quote is from Erving Goffman’s pathbreaking book Stigma (1963). Goffman, along with Robert Merton and some others, belong to my top shelf of American sociologists. Goffman deserves to be read “with” the text, not too critically “against”. Of course he was not a grand theorist, e g a social class theorist – that was not his mission.

More on Goffman:

See research blog note (in Norwegian) here.

Also, search in my dr. philos. thesis, here.

Other texts where Goffman is discussed (to come)

According to the foreword by Donald Ault in the new Fantagraphics Books series “Donald Duck – Lost in the Andes – by Carl Barks” (2011) , Barks – not Disney – was the one who invented most of the Donald Duck scenery and characters, including Uncle Scrooge. “Barks was perhaps the most widely read but least-known author in the world”.

I was six or seven years old when I started to recognize Barks’ stories, in the late 1950s. I would make a corn-flake bowl when I got home from school, reading Donald Duck when it arrived each week. A new Barks series was a special treat. I knew it only through a sense of the best drawings. Here we are again – top quality.

This is still my impression when, sixty years old, I reread his “Lost in the Andes” story. This layman story (Barks was an autodidact) is just great, regarding adventure, capitalism, US fingers on south America, and general attitude – a true artistic wonder. The foreword helped me me put words to several things I felt as a boy also, not least, the film-like technique, the great attention to timing, in his drawings.

Here is an example of Barks making fun of power in modern society (click on image to get a full version).

“Important egg dealers are interested”…indeed.

Although the foreword describes how Barks died without much recognition, is is a bit curious, by 2012, that it does not more clearly mention his critical view of capitalism, which was a red thread in his best work.

The book as a whole is not up to the standard of “Lost in the Andes”, the long adventure story where Barks had free hands, it also contains shorter and less interesting stories – illustrating the editorial constraints laid on this remarkable artist.

A kind of thought ray has a world locked up in deadly battle with the human colonizers.

The basic theme of Harry Harrison’s Deathworld (1960) has not lost its relevance, and the novel makes for a good reread, and although not great literature, it is up from e g his Stainless steel character. The man gambles but he also thinks and feels. Very interesting concerning the  period development in science fiction.  Camouflaged as science fiction, we get a critique of military logic, and a sketch of another form of society. Not bad, even if some of the writing is poor. I found Deathworld while going through my SF library, to rediscover, and enjoy.

Under the heading, Does feminism have a bad reputation?, almost 50 participants attended the start conference of the new Feminist Forum at the University of Oslo, at Chateau Neuf Nov 26, with presentations by Charlotte Myrbråten, former editor of the feminist journal Fett, and myself. Mostly students, about a quarter men.

The debate concerned whether feminism today has become a mark of disrespute or negative reactions. In some student circles, saying “I am a feminist” is a risky proposition.

Yet the reaction against what is perceived as “feminism” also has some understandable reasons. For example, when feminism becomes the word for women-only-interests, or upper-middle-class-career-interests. Main reasons why feminism gets into disrespute were discussed, including a belief that feminism only favors women (and is against men), only the middle class, or that it is no longer needed (the goals have been achieved, gender equality is here already).

The debate did not provide “answers”, but it was interesting, fun, open and smart – a good start for the new forum. A debate like this would scarcely have been possible twenty years ago. At that time, the “hard” front lines between the genders would have been much more marked. Today, Myrbråten argued that masculinits, also, could be feminists. This idea would hardly even have been understood twenty years ago. There has been a major change of climate, and it is most noticeable among young participants in the discussion.

The debate underlined the need to know, to create better analyses and theories, and for better research.

The new novel by China Mieville, Embassytown, is just great.

As an old science fiction fan, running low on new input for several years, I would never have expected this. Here is a true science fiction novel that shows the superiority of the whole genre, over the money-pushing fantasy bullshit that has polluted our shelves.

Having read some of his former novels, if I had not known, I would never have expected Mieville as the author of this. Since his former novels are good, this is great praise indeed.

Ursula K. LeGuin writes on the cover of my copy, that this is “a fully realised work of art”. On many levels, when reading, I am reminded of her masterwork, The left hand of darkness.

Mievelle’s novel continues the best traditions of science fiction, as well as doing an utterly astonishing “concretization” of postmodernist language theory.

I am still in the middle of it – but this is very much recommended.

Who would think, that gender equality reduces violence in the home by almost two thirds. Not I. I thought the evidence would be mixed, in line with international research. Yet this result popped up, in my research, and would not go away, whatever variable I corrected for. Some findings are more important than others, and this is one of them.

A summary of the evidence, in Norwegian, here (2.7 mb): Likestilling og vold mot barn

I am sorry for web page problems the last weeks, but they seem to be solved now.  (The web page appeared unordered, the css file did not work correctly).

The problems were fixed and the web page was brought up again, through the help of my son Lasse Gullvåg Sætre – very much appreciated!

We took the time to update to the latest version of WordPress, which seems better in many ways.

For some months now, I have had stipend time, to write a book on gender equality theory. That is, not just gender equality in practice, but as a theory matter also. A matter to be researched, studied, identified – far better than today.

Why? I look at gender equality as a subject on its own, beyond gender.  I look at the main traditions in research regarding gender inequality, compared to new material on increasing equality. What works, what not. Wheat and chaff.

I also discuss theory issues like, when is  a gender power model appropriate, when not.  Is gender equality something that happens after a lot of social development and democratization – or rather, a causal factor or predictor variable, acting on its own.

The book will hopefully be published first in Norwegian (2012 or 13) as Likestillingsteori, and then in a revised and translated version ca one year later, as Gender equality theory.

I am one of the contributors to the Women’s health days event in Oslo 1-2 April. See

http://www.forskningsradet.no/no/Arrangement/Kvinnehelsedagene_2011/1253964755410

My paper is titled Gender, violence and health – do we need a gender perspective in health and medicine? (in Norwegian,  Kjønn, vold og helse – trenger vi et kjønnsperspektiv på helse og medisin?v/Øystein Gullvåg Holter, professor i maskulinitets- og likestillingsforskning, UiO)

The seminar starts Friday 1st of April at 9, Oslo kongressenter, Youngstorget

My introduction, ca 10, will be focused on one example of why a gender perspective is needed – violence against children. New results show that violence against children is mainly performed by the adult who dominates the decision-making in the home.

Gender equal decision making among adults in families lowers the chance of violence against children perhaps as much as two thirds.

This is a major historical research result – in my view, and I will highlight it in my lecture.