I would never say that

My research has gotten some media attention again this fall. I’m pleased of course; it feels great to get recognition for what you do, as well as confirmation that what you’re doing is important.

I also got quite a bit of exposure for my opting out research when I finished my PhD a few years ago. Then, I talked about women opting out, because that was what my PhD had been about, but now I can add men to the mix, and compare my research results. This is interesting of course, since my research is somewhat unique in that respect.

I’ve always thought giving interviews is fun. I mean what researcher doesn’t love talking about his or her research? However, taking the picture that goes with the interview has been a different story, because they always take a picture.

The picture used to give me a fair share anxiety, at least back in 2014 when I finished my PhD. On the morning of the days I would have an interview, I would carefully choose what to wear, diligently blow dry my hair and spend some extra time applying my makeup, which I don’t use a lot of. It was always a bit stressful, because honestly, what does one wear when one gets featured in the media?! On interview days, I kind of wished I had a stylist.

But not only that, it almost always rained or was both rainy and windy on the days I got interviewed. This was unfortunate because my hair, which I had carefully blow dried, would always get hopelessly frizzy. I would hold my umbrella as close to my head as possible and dart between buildings, hoping to save my hairdo (which those of you who have a tendency to get frizzy hair know is a lost cause).

I remember on days I didn’t have interviews, I took to walking in the rain without an umbrella and looked up at the clouds thinking bring in on! It felt so liberating to not have to care about how I looked.

Luckily, I have come a long way since then, and I kind of stopped caring. This time around I really don’t get as stressed about how I look. People don’t really notice a difference anyway.

But, of course, there are other things. Like before, I’ve had a very positive experience. Most of the time, the journalists who interview me will send me drafts of the article before publishing to check facts and that they don’t misrepresent me. I really appreciate that, because there are almost always things that they have misunderstood and that need correcting, things that are just factually wrong.

It’s funny though, because as a researcher, when I interview people, I always record the interview and then I transcribe it, so that if I quote someone, I am absolutely certain that I write exactly what they have said. This is important in research. It would be unethical and just bad practice to misrepresent someone or to put words in their mouth.

But I have noticed that journalists don’t generally record interviews. They take notes and then they write the article based on those notes. They quote me using quotation marks, even though in reality they are paraphrasing because what they put in the quotation marks isn’t exactly what I said, but rather what we have talked about. I know this because often I find myself supposedly having said something in a way I would never say it. But I try not to be too picky, and as long as it’s factually correct, I let it pass.

Besides, often a journalist will write about my topic in a different way than I usually do, and I find the new perspective refreshing and often it adds value. They mostly do great jobs.

However, sometimes they don’t send me a draft first, and the first time I see the article is when it is published. Reading through it for the first time, is always a tiny bit nerve-racking, because I’m doing it at the same time as uncountable others and I don’t really know what I will find. Most of the time it’s fine, but sometimes they get things wrong. And sometimes it’s not just some minor unimportant detail.

This happened in an interview last month that was featured in not one but two newspapers in Finland. The reporter had quoted me saying that Finland is a gender equal country.

Now you might not think this is a big deal, but I was reeling when I saw it. I would never say that; it is simply not true. Finland isn’t a gender equal country. Finland is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, that I know I said, but to say that gender equality has been reached in Finland is a lie. There continues to be structural inequalities between men and women and we certainly have a lot of work left to do regarding gender equality in Finland.

But it was upsetting also for another reason. I am, among other things, a gender scholar. One of the things I have worked for during the past few years, is to raise awareness about gender inequalities and to make Finnish organizations more gender equal. Having me declare that Finland is gender equal in a national newspaper, kind makes much of what I have been doing superfluous and irrelevant. It kind of undermines everything I stand for.

So no, Finland is not gender equal, and I would never suggest that it is.