Boycott Willetts

'Boycott Willetts' is a fairly new student led campaign (also endorsed by some staff), with an aim to reverse my university's decision- Kings College London- in their decision of employing David Willetts, former University Minister, as a visiting professor in the department of Political Economy. He has also been hired to work with the universities policy institute.  

In 2010 David Willetts was one of key people in cooking up the educational elitist storm which is other wise known as the tripling of tuition fees. Hiring the man who passed such an unpopular policy and quickened the transition of turning universities into businesses and students into customers, is possibly one of the most offensive, hypocritical, and unsympathetic moves a university could make.

To unravel the elitist beliefs and the detrimental effects that Willetts has had on this country, lets first of all set the scene of his political life:

Willetts is very much a career politician and has very little understanding of what life is actually like for the majority of society. After graduating from Oxford with a first class honours degree in PPE (an atypical quality of an elite Tory) he became a private researcher for Nigel Lawson before moving over to Margaret Thatchers policy unit. In 1992, Willets became an MP and quickly established himself as an aspirational, loyal member of the party which led to becoming pay master general. He was actually forced to resign from this position in 1996 as a result of giving misleading evidence (he lied) in an investigating committee into Neil Hamilton's part in the cash for questions scandal.

However, Willets soon made a return to high rankings of the conservative party and was nicknamed "Two Brains"among his Tory chums. Despite supposedly being clever enough to have two brains in his head, it transpired that David Willetts is really really bad with money as he was involved with yet another scandal in 2009. The infamous expenses scandal of course! Willetts exhausted his expenses claim limit on numerous occasions as a result of submitting invoices of £330 for a dog kennel, paying workmen £115 to replace 25 light bulbs (he might be clever, but he can't climb step ladders), and spending almost £9000 on bathroom maintenance. Between 2001 and 2008, David Willetts claimed £143,764 of taxpayers money for his second home allowance. He quite frankly took the piss.

This man, someone who actively ripped off the people who voted him into power, had the mordacity to support policies in parliament that decreased living standards for the countries most desperate, and effectively laid the blame of Britain's financial problems with the poorest in society. Labelling people who are reliant on the welfare state as scroungers, spongers, or cheats simply makes an easy scapegoat and deters attention away from the much larger problem of tax avoidance and fiddling the system at a much higher, costly level- something that Willetts is clearly guilty of.

During his time in power David Willetts has supported cuts to disabled benefits and voted against taxations to bankers bonuses. Clearly a man with elitist priorities. Willetts also voted very strongly for the Iraq war, against equal gay rights, he supported the bedroom tax, voted for an overall reduction in spending on welfare benefits, supported the selling of state owned woodland to private companies, he voted against spending public money to create jobs for young people in long term unemployment, and very strongly for a reduction of corporation tax.... David Willetts provides the most help to the people who need it the least, and attacks the people who need the most the help. He is not the kind of person that Kings College London should be advocating.

In defending themselves, Kings is most likely going to suggest that universities are a space for people with differing and sometimes controversial opinions. However, I dispute this argument as a defence for employing David Willetts because KCL should not have space for opinions that are morally unacceptable. As well as being a man with distorted social priorities Willetts is also a raving misogynist. In 2011 David Willets claimed that feminism was a hindrance to society and blamed a stagnation of social mobility between classes on women taking up university places and jobs that could have otherwise been given to ambitious working class men. A racist professor would not be accepted at Kings College, and nor should one who believes that half the students studying there are simply occupying places that would be better off being taken by their male counter parts.

The selection of Willetts is a massive slap in the face for the students. It was summed up quite nicely on a facebook thread on which someone said that hiring David Willetts as a professor in a university is like employing the owner of an abattoir as an animal rights campaigner. 

But as controversial as this appointment is, it's not surprised me. I've only been a student at Kings for a few months and already they've repeatedly  proved themselves to be an elitist money making institution; The Boycott Willetts campaign is just one of numerous that are working in reversing the principles of our university. For instance, the Affordable Accommodation campaign is currently petitioning the principle to guarantee like for like affordable accommodation when they close them down. Instead, they're shutting the cheapest accommodation, which costs £119 a week (although this is the cheapest, the student loan still isn't enough to cover the rent), and have replaced it with another that costs almost £200 a week. The university is also under criticism from students for it's investment of £8million a year in fossil fuels. The student satisfaction statistics are pretty bloody awful, being among the worst in the country, and it's hardly surprising when the business side of the university seems to go against what is best for the students.

Although it's not surprising, this campaign is still certainly worth a shot. Especially in a case that is so abhorrently elitist. In an article released by Kings the prinicple Ed Byrne is quoted to have said that he is "looking forward to be working closely with David Willetts" which should certainly get alarm bells ringing..... it's extremely unusual for a professor to work 'very closely' with the prinicple of the university. David Willetts was hired as a result of nepotism and students are expected to be willing to be taught politics, by the man who put them in three times the amount of debt for the exact same education. His policy has had a monumentally negative impact on so many young peoples lives and those same people are expected to take him seriously. This shouldn't happen. And it's pretty obvious that Willetts is going to be paid a hefty sum if he does eventually assume his new post, and meanwhile other members of staff much lower down the hierarchy that Willets has helped reenforce, are being laid off.

The least we can do is try and make Kings College London take the students opinions seriously. Lets hope they listen to us this time, and lets not surrender to elitism. 

**

Voting pattern knowledge taken from YouGov.

Fashion is not Vain, Dumb, or Stupid.

Ziad Ghanem Catwalk Show, AW14. (My image)

There is an assumption that fashion and feminism are on opposite ends of the 'interests spectrum', the former is compromised by the latter, and they never go hand in hand. The general outlook is that you cannot be a feminist if you like clothes, because clothes are vain, shallow, and insignificant and females, in the eyes of feminism (all rational people) are none of the above (correct) and should therefore disassociate themselves from such a mundane past time (incorrect). What is so often over looked is the fact that the opinions surrounding fashion are intentional and have been socially conditioned because this artform is the one area in life where women have a greater freedom of expression than men. 

Fashion is treated as trivial because women are treated as trivial. 

It is the height of irony that women are perceived as ornamental beings, objects of desire, and are constantly encouraged to tirelessly seek out a better physical self, yet when we take an interest in the very same attire that we are supposed to shower ourselves in in order to achieve all of this, we are punished for it. We become self centred creatures. Really, there is no winning. As a woman, you're either not good enough or you're trying too hard and this is exactly why feminism needs to be associated with fashion.

It is a definite form of sexisim to turn one of the only forms of expressions where women are free to liberate themselves and twist it into something that is worthless; an interest you should be embarrassed about taking a liking to.    

When the shoe was on the other foot and the most exquisite clothes were worn by the richest men in the land, frills, fabrics, and wigs were a status symbol and a goal to aspire to whilst those who weren't elites, Lords, or Ladies had to make do with rags and a palette of greys. But over time, more fabrics became widely available and more people were able to dabble within the realms of fashion, including women. And this isn't liked... the whole 'women having power' thing.

The tide has turned and women are free to adopt an androgynous appearance, in fact it's on trend, but it's a rather different situation for men. I'm not saying this is right, because it isn't, and anybody who knows me understands my firm belief that if I were a boy, I'd be a drag queen. I'm all for a man in a frock. But not everybody else is and whilst women are free to take on masculinity within the fashion sphere, the same does not go for men and even the idea of a 'man bag' is met with a widespread cringe. Men adopting female clothing styles can expect mockery at best and prejudice or even violence at worst. There are also sexist reasons for why it's this way around- masculinity offers an admirable sense of power while femininity is inferior and is not a quality worth aiming for- but the point remains, women have greater flexibility. And men, in history, have found this power unsettling because women have risen above their place and this is where the negative stigmas come from... men tied women down to stop the art form from revolutionising a females position within society. 

The sad thing is that it worked and can by proven by the fact that women's fashion is not made by women. You are far more likely to succeed within the industry if you are a man. Where is the justice in having an industry that is heavily targeted at women being controlled predominantly by Men? Of course, there are powerful women... let us not forget Dame Vivienne Westwood and the infamously fearsome Anna Wintour of Vogue. But she's most likely been a bitch because she's had to be- it is not easy to earn enough to survive in fashion never mind making millions as a woman at the top. On a small scale, of the 20 students on my art foundation course, which has recently drawn to a conclusion, only 3 were male and yet the odds are in their favour in terms of being the most successful. Likewise, the girl:boy ratio at UAL, a group of London art universities which include the best fashion & arts institutes in the world, is 75% female and 25% male. These students are the creme de la creme and yet 75% of students studying are at an immediate loss because of their gender.

Despite men being far and few between at the relevant universities, the situation is completely reversed at some point during the translation of studying and forging a career. Although it's difficult to gather statistics, the Womenswear Designer of the Year is perfect in showing the gulf between genders. Over the last 13 years, the prize has been given to a man 8 times but a woman is yet to win the Menswear Designer of the year award. Fashion is therefore a feminist issue and instead of one being completely disassociated from the other, they need to start working together and allow women to swim, not sink.

For this to happen, there are a number of ideas that have been forged and need to be undone again in order to rid the negative tones that have been attached to the interest that someone may choose to have in clothes. We need to modernise the thought process when people hear the word 'fashion' and I also think the fashion industry has to do a bit of work too:

1. Having an interest in fashion does not equate to a lack of intelligence. One of the biggest stigmas surrounding fashion is that anyone who takes an interest is in no doubt an air head. The underlying reason for this is because of the degrading of fashion that I have discussed above; the assumption is that anyone who takes an interest in something so superficial must therefore have no substance themselves. Obviously, my argument is that fashion isn't superficial, and nor are the people involved. In every industry, and in very work place, there will be a materialistic, shallow person, and yes- these people also exist in the fashion industry... but you can't tar everyone with the same brush. 

The assumption that you must be a little bit dim if you wear nice clothes and spend time putting an outfit together is wrongly entrenched to the extent that I've actually seen feminists attack and/or belittle other women because they like fashion. I'm currently reading Jo Brand's autobiography, and as much as I love the woman, I was upset by her remarks about some girls she came across during her school years:

She states early on in the book that: "I subconsciously absorbed the message that being a girly girl and dressing to please was not the way forward". This doesn't really seem that bad, but it immediately isolates "girly girls" for what they wear and pictures them as something fragile.... this is the start of a sarcastic dig at women who like fashion. 

She continues by comparing her choice of clothes of: "a T-shirt, trousers and plimsoles" with the other girls waring "pretty dresses and nice shoes"... making them sound a little bit inferior to her 'boyish' choices.  

And the insulting part comes when she sarcastically refers to their interests: "A few girls whose heads were filled the very important details of what was fashionable that year" ... making it sound as though this is totally insignificant and because they happen to take an interest, they did not have the capacity to care about anything else. She explicitly labels them as "sad" and "empty-headed" making the assumption that liking fashion makes you a bit thick.

... This really upset me because I usually completely idolise the woman.

2. Women do not dress to impress men. The belief that fashion is anti-feminism because women use it to attract the opposite sex is massively flawed. Women use fashion as a feel good tool- they dress for themselves. When women dress to impress, it's often for other women because it is a form of expression that a large proportion of us are interested in- fashion is a uniting common ground that women from all over can identify with. The best place to see this in action is at fashion week, women flock to one other in awe of each others outfits and often, once a conversation starts rolling, you forge friendships as a result of someone liking your watering can shaped handbag.

3. There is absolutely nothing wrong in caring about your appearance, focusing on your best bits, and being body confident. Because women are bombarded with a constant stream of airbrushed images of goddesses as a target to aspire to, being told what diet to try next (according to the latest edition of Grazia magazine it's all about 'The Clay diet' which simply involves drinking clay), and generally being told that we don't look good enough ever, we've got used to feeling crap about ourselves and being battered and bruised by outsiders opinions. 

I think it's tragic that only 1% of women in this country consider themselves to be beautiful. It shows how we've been socially conditioned to believe that the word 'beautiful' is about your face, not who you are, and links with my belief that women are almost embarrassed if they're happy with they're body. Well there's nothing to be embarrassed about. Being comfortable with the way you look does not mean you're shallow or vain, it's a very positive way of thinking. Flipping go ahead and love yourself and be proud about it.  

4. Being 'fashionable' is not the same as being 'high maintenance'. A fashionable woman may not actually take three days to get ready to go out for tea. And even if it does, don't be quick to judge it as high maintenance behaviour. Fashion is often about knowing your style, having an eye for creativity, and being able to visualise what 'works'. This means that a lot of 'fashionistas' can put outfits that may appear to have been carefully planned and thought down to a 'T' in just matter of minutes. It can take 5 minutes to get something together, or it could take 50. If it's an interest, then there is absolutely no problem in experimenting with outfits- I reckon it's healthy for your self esteem and mental health to play about with your wardrobe. Using the word high maintenance is simplifying and shunning a creative process and a hobby.    

5. Make-up is totally OK too! I only wear make-up occasionally and never did do for college, which was often met with remarks such as "you're so brave!!!!" which is actually both insulting and patronising. However, if I did to choose to wear make-up I don't think it would make me any less of a feminist. Obviously, if someone feels as though they can't leave the house without make-up on then there is a massive body image problem going on, but wearing make-up, I believe, is just another branch of the fashion industry that allows scope for extra creativity. You can do some amazing things with make-up. And if you feel as though popping on a bit of lippy, mascara, and bronzer makes you look that little bit more fabulous, then go for it... work your assets!  

6. If someone is interested in fashion, it doesn't mean they're a bitch. Not much explanation needed here but for some reason this assumption is made (this was another thing that Jo Brand suggested in her book) and I THINK it's because people are intimidated by people who look good. Especially when big sunglasses are involved. Just remember that just because a girl likes her fashion, doesn't mean she wants to morph into the personality of Anna Wintour.

7. Live television reports/newsrooms need to stop patronising women with 'powerful' high heels. Never have I seen a woman reporting the news, on breakfast telly, or on a panel, in a pair of flat shoes.  (Actually I think Caitlin Moran wore a pair of converse for an interview on NewsNight once). It's old fashioned minds at work and I find it all a bit unsettling. Why do women on the telly need to wear them? A smart heel is no smarter than a smart flat. And I'm quite certain that not every woman on the screen wants to be sat/stood there in a pair of shoes that are crippling their feet... especially when they're on air from 5.30am. There should be a choice. Having all female news reporters in high heels is a bit patronising and turns the 'empowering women' attempt into a 'lets-dress-our-women-up-like-pretty-little-dolls-and-make-them-a-bit-taller' horror show. (Production and styling teams, sort this out please.) 

8. The fashion industry needs to acknowledge that 'plus-size' is NOT a size 12. BUT we need to acknowledge that fashion is not the only source responsible for the country wide "lack of body confidence crisis." I am sympathetic with anyone who discredits what seems to be the industries projection of an ideal (stick thin) woman and I agree with the fact that 'plus size' should mean exactly that on the catwalk. Using tiny models is also a problem, and yes, many models do have eating disorders because of the brutal nature of the work. But sometimes magazines are forced to use tiny models because the samples they're sent for shoots are tiny as it's all about minimal waste and maximum profit. There are also many designers who do use plus size models, such as Ziad Gahnem who walks complete novices and as well as plus sized models with blue hair, covered in tattoos, he also hires transgender and transvestite models, as does Pam Hogg. So there are actually designers within industry, working vehemently to change it- they're not all the same. 

9. We've been taught to judge others instantaneously based on what they wear... this stops us wearing what we want to wear. On a personal level this follows a similar theme to the make-up comments I receive, my clothes aren't especially 'normal', and so I get the "You're so brave/daring to wear that".... which, as I say above, is not actually a compliment!! People seem to find it acceptable to discredit my clothes just because they think I can handle it. I get the "what on earth is that?!?!" reaction quite often. 

But I'm not 'brave', I'm just me. I wear the clothes I do because I like them not because I wake up every morning and think to myself "Today I'm going to be visually courageous". I much prefer the terms 'adventurous' or 'experimental' because thats what I do with my clothes, I explore with combinations and constantly find new things that I like, and I show the world this by walking down the street in an a pair  of my mums old dungarees, clashing patterns, and battered doc martens that are covered in paint. I don't let the mainstream trends or opinions effect my choice in clothes and I really wish more people thought this way. Wear the clothes you do because you like them, not because you saw 307 other girls wearing it first. 

There should be no shame in wearing the clothes that make you feel good. This is empowerment, and everything about that is rooted and supported by feminism. Womens fashion is feminist!

Just be you. 

10. Fashion is not Vain, Dumb, or Stupid. Need I say more?

Hannah

x

Facebook rant I made earlier.....

Fitspiration, Thinspiration, Eating Disorders & Why I'm Miffed With Instagram.

Taken from an Instagram account, 'Thinspiration Station" that claims to endorse weight loss with a 'healthy' approach.

"Hashtag thinspoooooo!!". That's about as '2014' as it gets. Most of us, even my 84 year old Grandma, use some sort of social networking platform and will therefore come across 'fitspiration' and 'thinspiration'- a 21st century culture that supposedly encourages us to aim for a better body and a better 'self'.

But, as with just about everything else on the planet, it isn't as simple as that. This internet craze, that one of your well intentioned friends (or even yourself) will have shared on their/your profile at some point, has a much a darker side and unfortunately it's just a click away from Google.

Instagram, along with other social networking sites, either blocked the hashtag 'thinspiration' or replaced it with a popup for www.nationaleatingdisorders.org because of the unhealthy nature of this deathly pursuit for thinness. The difference between thin/fitspiration advice, and symptoms of an eating disorder are often indistinguishable; on searching, you are essentially taught to see the body as the enemy.

Unfortunately, the work of social networking management in tackling the negative bombardment of thinspiration is too simplistic. Both of the options mentioned above are not sufficient because: a) popping up a link is more of a 'lets-cover-are-own-arse' move than something that productively encourages vulnerable people to seek help. b) blocking hashtags doesn't work. 'thinspiration' is blocked, as is 'thinspo'. But 'thynspoo' isn't (50,877 posts under that hashtag on instagram) and nor are 'ana' (for anorexia) or 'mia' (for bulimia) with a combined total of 9 million related posts on Instagram. And c) These sites make massive contradictions. There are still hundreds, thousands of accounts dedicated to thinspiration on Instagram and yet mine was removed and I assume that was because I posted several posts with the hashtag 'eating disorder'. I used this hashtag for credible reasons; the posts in question were of my artwork which I've made to help raise awareness of eating disorders and promote recovery and this was made very clear in each and every caption. I do NOT suggest that eating disorders are a conscious life style choice.

So here I am, with a newly made instagram account whilst others, dedicated to 'thinspiration' are still in existence, have thousands of followers, and as many posts. 'Thinspirationfreak' for example has over 8000 followers with a profile full of womens stomachs and thigh gaps. Meanwhile 'thinspirationstation' has 20k followers and claims to be "inspiring weight loss in a healthy way" despite posting images with slogans such as "Think before you eat" and "KEEP CALM AND BECOME A SKINNY BITCH" plastered over them. Yeah, real healthy.

A thinspiration post.

Thinspiration

This image, and the one above are examples of the work that my former Instagram page used alongside the hashtag 'eating disorder' as well as 'recovery'. I reposted the fork onto my new instagram page with the same well explained caption.

And this brings me back to the the link I made in point 'b' between 'thinspiration' and eating disorders. It's a crucial link and prompts the question 'where is the line drawn?' Well, in fact the lines are totally blurred. The fact is that thinspirations counterpart, fitspiration, which remains unblocked on social media despite being dubbed 'pro-anorexia layered in muscle', motivates people through encouraging hatred of the body. It is a trigger waiting to be pulled- the bullets of eating disorders are hitting more and more people. There has been a 60% increase of EDNOS in women over the last 10 years and a 24% increase for males.

Posts on social networking sites that focus on body image in a degrading way does not help this rise, they actually contribute to it. I actually think that thinspiration/fitspiration posts and pro-ana posts are pretty much one and the same. 'Pro-ana' is a movement that developed in the 1990s but it has exploded in the last few years, it argues that anorexia is a choice, not an illness, and in some cases, pro-ana websites endorse the illness and basically argue that you aren't perfect until you are dying. And people do. Die I mean, people do die. Anorexia alone has the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses and 20% of people suffering with anorexia will die prematurely because of either suicide, heart attacks, or other medical complications. There are currently 1.6million people in the UK known to be suffering from an eating disorder whilst millions of others will be hiding from the truth.

For the last year or so, I've learnt a lot about eating disorders. Not really because I became increasingly curious about the respective illnesses but because I've had to. I've had to because suddenly, anorexia and bulimia were thrown into the works- not for me personally, but for someone very close- and when you are a bystander in these situations, there's really not much you can do. You can be a support, but you can't make a mental illnesses disappear. And that for me, has been crippling. So I decided to learn; to learn and understand on a greater level so I could be compassionate when it was most needed.

I taught myself through endless research and a full time art project which was inclusive of both practical work, written reports, and documentation of other peoples stories.

And I know enough to say that thinspiration and fitspiration are deterimental to mental health. These posts encourage diets and excessive exercise and, according to 'beat', 35% of people who set out to diet 'healthily' end up pathologically dieting and 25% of these people end up with a full blown eating disorder. There is also strong evidence to suggest that eating disorders are not only genetic, but transferable within friendship groups if eating patterns and weightloss become a prevailing conversation topic. And in a society where 69% of children aged 10-18 get their inspiration for their own body weight/image from magazines, it is likely that this is a conversation topic. We really don't need a degrading thin/fitspiration in a society where the perception of beauty has already been socially conditioned.

 There is of course an opposing argument stating that it is possible to retrieve positive influences from  posts of the fitspiration genre. The account 'Skinny Mom' argues that:

“someone with low self-esteem and self-worth will likely have an unhealthy perspective of fitspo images, whereas someone who has high self-esteem and self-worth will have a healthy perspective”.

And this, I suppose, is true. Someone who is body confident and knows their physical worth will know to ignore the hatred that is entrenched in these posts. Although that isn't really making a 'healthy perspective', it's actually just censoring out language with bullying overtones and listening to your own body.

So just how many people are positively effected by these posts and images? How can their possibly be a majority of people finding these posts enlightening when only 1% of women in Britain consider themselves to be beautiful? And why would anyone who was comfortable with their body search for criticism as a source of motivation to improve?

I will argue, until the cows come home, that this hate teaching culture is monumentally more damaging than it is helpful.

It teaches us that are worth is made up of our bodies and that are purpose is superficial; it is judged by the looks we get for our bodies. They use an abusive form of motivation to inspire body shame. The images trigger anxiety, hopelessness, and ask you to go to all extremes to achieve something that is unsustainable; "don't stop unless your puking" and "be stronger than your excuses". HELLO!!!?? Stopping at the point of collapse is not an excuse, it's your body screaming at you for help.

You are worth so much more than just your body; it is the shell that holds you and your life. One of the earliest feminists, and one of my main influences, Mary Wollstonecraft, said the following back in the late 18th century and it remains overwhelmingly relevant to society:

"Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.”

Here Wollstonecraft explains that society endlessly tries to define people as their body. We are asked to believe that our power, identity, and worth lie in what we look like; for women, our beauty is our best and most powerful asset so we have to make the most of it. Like Wollstonecraft, I oppose this. Your body is the vehicle which your life depends on but it is not everything that you are. Who you are is so powerful, so magnificent, that it is actually intangible.  Nobody will ever be able to physically touch the whole of you or your personality- you are in charge of what that is, no one else. This new wave of culture is trying to reverse this idea and revert back to eighteenth century ideology where looks become everything (especially for women), and so your body becomes your limit and your prison when in fact it should be respected by yourself and others should respect you for having that confidence. 

The messages that fitspiration/thinspiration send in teaching you to remove yourself from your physical being, and attack it, are simply aggravating an already growing problem of decreasing self appreciation. Each year, 5000 15-19 year old girls are diagnosed with eating disorders in this country and instead of bowing down to bones and the patriarchy that anchors us, we need to inject positivity into society and teach people how to love their bodies. 

Trying to runaway from your body doesn't work.  You cannot run away from you. You will always be there. So use this to your own advantage and the reap the good qualities you already sew instead of searching for constant imperfections, and flick a massive 'V' to fitspiration type posts.

The alternative to not having your body isn't a great one; your life has amazing value so treat your body with respect and love. It is the 'thing' that will transport you through life, not an empty vessel. 


Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

(follow my new instagram account 'ihannahtheduckling')

Slow Hand-Clap Awards 2013.

Borrowing the phrase from Caitlin Moran's tweet, it's safe to say that the 'Slow Hand-Clap Award (she said of 'yesterday' I reckon it's a big enough boob to be the award of the whole of 2013)' goes to the 1000 idiots- and yes it's a strong and accusing word but I 100% stand by it- who complained about the BBC's "excessive" coverage of Mandela's death which consequently cut short the airing of a repeat of Mrs Browns Boys by 12 minutes. 

In my latest post over on Style Freak, I discussed a wonderful photographer who captures and affirms my faith in humanity, these people on the other hand are possibly enough to obliterate it. 

I don't really know where to start with this actually. I'm a bit gobsmacked (takes a lot).

Nelson Mandela was one of the greatest freedom fighters of the 20th and 21st century and was denied this very right- freedom- for 27 years of his life whilst he was imprisoned for committing the crime of having black skin and speaking out for equality. In the year 2013, Civil Rights have come a long way since Mandela was released and yet 1000 British people chose to completely abuse this fact, and would have preferred a refusal to celebrate huge advancements in equality because of Mandela's work, instead opting for a two year old episode of a comedy sitcom.

During the years of his imprisonment it was illegal- punishable with a prison sentence- to have a picture of Nelson Mandela in any home or building in South Africa; the government attempted to erase him from memory in a bid to deter people from pursing the fight for racial justice. The government in power back then tried to brainwash the people to forget. Now, 49 years on from the first day Mandela served in prison, the people wanted to stop government organisations from remembering. The coin has flipped. And the irony of the progression that Mandela was responsible for is frankly disgusting. This goes to show the amount of shame a handful of people can impose on the general public; I am repulsed by the idea that I'm walking on the same ground as the 1000 individuals who, without shame, went to the effort of complaining to the BBC.   

And what did the viewers miss in those twelve minutes? Simulated sex with a cupboard. And it's not just those who complained that stepped out of line either... the press has joined in too. Metro published this article today which headlines:

In today’s multi-channel age, the BBC was wrong to interrupt Mrs Brown’s Boys with Nelson Mandela’s death

So not only were the complaints disgusting, the Metro lowered itself to similar standards- passing on the message that Mrs Browns Boys had just as much reason as Mandela's death to be aired because the news could have simply been popped on a different channel instead. 

What the fuck is going on?!

How a newspaper can even try to justify this argument is beyond words and the fact that I should even have to give a reason as to why the death of the first black President and a world famous Civil Rights fighter had absolute reason to interrupt all the programmes on every channel for the rest of the evening has left me aghast. This was a man who, as President (and prior to this) lead a tireless fight for equality in the middle of an era when numerous world leaders, such as Thatcher, refused to cooperate and legislated to effectively support apartheid through the refusal of applying economic sanctions. As late as 1987, two years before Mandela was released, Thatcher was quoted to regard the ANC as "a typical terrorist organisation". This was the kind of attitude Mandela was faced with when he left prison and yet, within a year, he became President of South Africa. 

.... But of course, the announcement of the passing of this great man should have been left for a further 12 minutes, or at least been broadcast elsewhere instead of causing disruption to an outdated episode of a comedy series. Do these people have ANY IDEA how moronic they are?!

The fact that the BBC felt that they had to issue a statement in response to the hundreds of complaints, stating that Mandela's passing was of "singular significance" and even going as far as an apology, seriously upsets me. To me, it stands as evidence to confirm the argument that I have put forward in previous articles; we live in a society that is disillusioned by how 'equal' we really are. Racial equality is still very much an 'issue' and the naivety and stupidity of these complaints will hopefully shock people into realising that certain priorities urgently need to be reconsidered.   

*****

Whilst I was writing this piece, my attention was diverted to a certain photograph and I am saddened to announce, that today brings a second 'Slow Hand-Clap Award'.... and  it breaks my heart to have to present this to Barack Obama and David Cameron along with Denmark's Prime Minister Helle Thorning Schmidt. The offending act was the below photograph:

It's a 'funeral selfie'.... the trio were caught red-handed at Mandela's memorial service taking the above shot on the Danish PMs phone. Again, I don't quite know where to start. I mean, I know it was a celebration of life, but this is just a low blow. A complete lack of respect. Here we have two of THE most powerful people in the world taking a selfie.... something I'd cringe at myself doing on a normal day, in the privacy of my bedroom, never mind doing it a service of someones life. But this isn't about me.... It's world leaders at a fellow world leader's memorial service acting as representatives of their countries. At what point did they think this would be OK? It makes me want to weep.  

 It's nice that they were happy to be there, but lets not trample all over the pride and honour they should regard for a man that is responsible for the multi-racial societies they preside over. David Cameron ought to be taking much more care, he is after all the current leader of a political party that refused to help end apartheid and in fact, Thatcher supported it, AND that same party is now attempting to rewrite their history and portray themselves as a Mandela, racial-justice-loving, organisation. Please, for the sake of humanity, do not let your memory kid you into thinking that the Conservatives in any way supported Mandela's policies.     

I was more repulsed and shocked by Obama than Cameron. I thought he'd accrued a significant amount of genuine life experience (not that it takes much... I'm 19 and know that this is completely wrong) in comparison to the mollycoddled removed-from-reality Etonian. I've had it in for our PM since he took leadership because I think he's a posh, power seeking, career driven, elitist twat, so it's not as though I feel as though any amount of admiration has been lost because there wasn't any there in the first place. Of course I'm appalled at him, because he's painted a very ugly picture of our governments (and general public's) attitude of all that Mandela has done, but I was much more disheartened and outraged with Barrack Obama. In a sentence, he's played up to the typical apathetic remark that "all politicians are the same". Obama, a Democrat, has tarred himself with the same brush as Tory David Cameron... why he'd want to be seen in the same light is beyond me. This photo has caused me to loose a lot of trust and respect in the man. I will no longer liken my desire to become Prime Minister of his successful journey to President.... we are very different people. 

Although, despite my decreasing love for Obama, my faith has not been lost in his wife, who looks increasingly annoyed at her husband throughout the series of photographs that have been released. Team Michelle.

But it looks as though that if things are to really going change in the political arena, I better become Prime Minister sooner rather than later.

“I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back on the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.” 

― Nelson Mandela

(a rather apt quote)

Hannah Riley.

@hannahtheduck  

Stop FGM in the UK

*This Post contains graphic images*

FGM.

Three letters that are separately distinctive to most people on the planet. But together they make very little sense to the majority of the same people- and this worries me. It's actually rather tragic that in the twenty first century a form of  barbaric child abuse can be so easily carried out whilst a nation sits in blissful ignorance.

The letters 'F' 'G' & 'M' stand for Female Genital Mutilation, otherwise known as female castration:"procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons." The practice originated in the African cotenant in around 500BC but due to migration, this is now taking place all over the world. And may I heavily stress that not only is this procedure carried out on children as young as four, but they receive absolutely no anaesthetic throughout; every cut and every stitch is felt. 

It's happening here in the UK despite it having been illegal since 1985; and what's worse, there have been no prosecutions whatsoever since this date.

I write about this off the back of 'The Cruel Cut' which aired on Channel 4 on the 8th November (watch in full here). The programme aimed to raise awareness of exactly what FGM is and to inform people that it's happening on our door step; Over 66,000 women in the UK have already undergone female genital mutilation and more than 24,000 girls are at risk. It revealed the stories of victims and gave graphic accounts of what their own families put them through, including descriptions of being pinned to the ground and having to listen to their sister's screams whilst they wait to be operated on... all to make a girl 'pure'.
 
There are several variations of FGM;
 
-Type 1 involves the removal of the clitoral hood which is rarely, if ever, performed alone. More common is Type Ib (clitoridectomy), the partial or total removal of the clitoris, along with the prepuce. In this procedure, the clitoris is pulled upwards between the thumb and index finger, pulled out, and amputated- bleeding is stopped with stitching.
 
- Type 2 involves the total removal of the clitoris along with the partial of total removal of the inner labia.
 
- Type 3 is the removal of all external genitalia and the fusing of the wound, leaving a small hole just 2mm wide for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. One of the women involved in the documentary described the terror of her first period as she realised that the blood was actually unable to escape from her body as a result of this procedure. Following this, the inner and outer labia are cut away, with or without excision of the clitoris. A pinhole is created by inserting something into the wound before it closes, such as a twig or rock salt. The wound may be sutured with surgical thread- sometimes thorns are used- to hold the sides together. The girl's legs are then tied from hip to ankle for 2–6 weeks until the tissue has bonded.

The descriptions above are enough to prove that this is torture and it completely baffles me as to why it is simply not acted on.

As expected, there are many complications involved with FGM, both long-term and immediate, including fatal bleeding, septicaemia, and the transmission of HIV if the surgical apparatus is not sterile. Long term complications include incontinence and infertility as well as painful periods and intercourse. Neonatal fertility is also severely effected as a direct result of FGM; an additional 10–20 babies die per 1,000 deliveries as a result. The chances of a babies death during birth is increased by: 15 percent for Type I, 32 percent for Type II and 55 percent for Type III.

The death rates are unknown as few records are kept, complications may not be recognised, and fatalities are rarely reported.

The fact is, FGM effectively deprives women of their sexuality. Their natural genitalia is manipulated to the extent where natural behaviours, such as intercourse are too painful to endure, and their periods cause huge problems. Women are stopped from being women because of an operation that is illegally taking place.

I'm really struggling to get my head around any justification for this huge government let down over the past three decades.
 
Before watching the programme, I was aware what 'FGM' was but I didn't know what 'FGM' meant.... I knew that female castration took place in order to try and stop girls from enjoying sex but I wasn't aware of the extent of the practice and reasonings, nor was I aware of the term FGM. I don't really think I realised that this goes ahead without anaesthetic and I completely separated it from British culture, as though it had nothing to do with me, and there was nothing I could do about it. My partial ignorance made me feel slightly disgusted.

However, I was more shocked by the amount of people who were willing to sign a phony petition that would legalise FGM in this country, with many people agreeing to the words "Its only mutilation" as though castrating a woman was no big deal. I don't necessarily blame the people who signed it, I blame their lack of education surrounding the issue- the public simply didn't know enough about the abuse that Layla Hussein was pretending to defend.

 Out of the many people she asked to sign, only one refused. 
 
So why does female genital mutilation happen? 

There are many reasons for it's existence, it stems from purity and is rooted in gender inequality. Although many mothers of the children who are forced to have the procedure support FGM, it all stems from a males pleasure- FGM happens for men. It is cantered upon controlling a woman's sexuality, preventing her enjoyment of intercourse, and enhancing his through the tightening of the vagina. I truly believe that mothers support it through fear rather than having a genuine defence for the 'cut', as their is a huge stigma associated with not having it, an un-mutilated vagina is deemed as being 'unclean' and they're concerned about their daughters prospects of having a male suitor. It is said that FGM is an ethnic marker, and it is this factor which I think is making the pivotal difference between action and the whole thing going unnoticed....

..... Lets face it, if blonde haired blue-eyed girls were victims of this barbaric torture, it'd be all over the news and there'd certainly be 'FGM criminals' in prison. This is as much about racial inequality as it is gender inequality.

I also think that if it were white girls at the centre of this problem, Theresa May would have spared time to discuss FGM with those who were involved with 'The Cruel Cut' programme instead of refusing to come out of her surgery and having someone else write a letter on her behalf. The fact is that she's embarrassed nothing has been done to protect children who are vulnerable to circumcision DESPITE it being illegal. She is embarrassed, as is the government as a whole, that grave inequalities under the protection of the law still exist.

 If the government won't face the problem, we're going to have to force them to.

You can sign a petition by clicking here. "The aim is to get the Home Department- one of the five that FGM currently falls under- to take responsibility for and effective leadership against FGM as it falls under the Violence Against Woman and Girls (VAWG) portfolio. We want them to take the lead in drawing up and enforcing the implementation of a National Strategy and Action Plan to eliminate FGM in the UK."

We need 100,000 signatures for this to be debated in the House of Commons, and as I write this, we're on 73,508. Please help to make this happen. A debate is the first step forward in protecting young children. This has the potential to initiate a string of events aimed directly towards raising the profile of FGM and finally acting upon the law that was passed decades ago.

I truly think that FGM is yet another issue that should be on the National Curriculum- there is nothing more important than educating the masses.
 
As tragic as the story within the documentary was, 'The Cruel Cut' was the best thing I've seen on TV for a very long time; it fills you with the urge to be proactive, and I for one want to be an active part of the campaign. Leyla, Efua, if you're reading, please get in touch.

Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

(#StopFGM)

What Feminisim Isn't

After having watched this episode of newsnight a few days ago, I took to twitter- as I do on a regular basis- to express my views and was greeted with a bundle of tweets confirming the fact that gender equality still has a way to go. I understand that people will have conflicting interests, but to be told that I have "no right to comment" on an issue effecting me personally and the millions of other women on this planet by a male UKIP wannabe-MP is a bit much.  

The discussion above and the tweets I received  pushed all of the wrong buttons and I felt compelled to assure you all that feminism isn't about sandals and hairy armpits. For a start, I don't think the programme dedicated enough time to the discussion itself, I completely understand the fact that NewsNight has to stick to a schedulde and fit a lot into its 50 minute time slot but how can prejudice effecting 52% of the worlds population be covered in an 11 minute talk?

The three women involved had some very different opinions of what feminism involves and I'd like to show you my ideas, definitions etc. in a nut shell. I came up with the questions myself but wrote as though someone was asking them otherwise they read oddly, so here we have it:

What is feminism?    
- Simply working towards, and believing in the principle that women are equal to men. That's literally it. I can't speak for everyone, but in my opinion feminism is not about picking fights nor is it anti-men. It's just anti-inequality.

The image of militants and women with hairy armpits does not characterise feminists. If some women feel that venting their anger in such ways will help advance womens rights, then I do sympathise with them, and if some don't want to shave their armpits as a protest against the desirable image of a 'woman'- created by the influence of a males pleasure- then I wholeheartedly understand that. But it's sad that this stereotype makes people shy away from feminism because it's really not a complicated movement, it just wants men and women to be treated as equals.

And you don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, just as you don't have to be black to support civil rights... men can support equality too.  

Are you a feminist?
-I am unapologetically a feminist. No matter what stereotype people have of feminists, I will forever proudly associate myself with them. It would make no sense for me not to be one.

As Mary Beard points out above, "I can't understand a woman who isn't [a feminist]".

On what basis are women unequal to men? 
- Sport, Politics, Heads of Industry, and physical expectations.

Sexisim is everywhere but these are distinctive areas that immediately come to mind as they all involve vast inequalities based on sex.

The sporting world offers a prime example to show that the Equal Pay Act of 1970- ensuring that women are paid the same wages as males in the same positions- is not followed through. Wayne Rooney earns £180,000 a week. Compare this to the womens England football team who, after having received a £4000 pay rise in January this year, earn an annual wage of £20,000. It's disgusting.

Turn to Politics and you'll see the problem of under-representation. In Parliaments all around the world the presence of women is severely lacking. Here in the UK, 147 of our 650 MPs are female. It nowhere near represents the society we live in; and as the function of Parliament is to represent the people, this is a huge dilemma. Put on PrimeMinisters Questions on a Wednesday afternoon and you'll really have to look hard to spot a handful of women. We are in 58th position (joint with Israel) in representing women in parliament; The Philippines, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Finland, Tunisia, Sudan, China, Sweden, Ethiopia, and most ironically, Iraq, are all countries that rate above us in representing women in Parliament. Rwanda has the highest representation with 64% of representatives being female, look the other way and Micronesia, Palau, Vanuatu, and Qatar are all countries with absolutely no female representatives, and there are 35 countries with fewer than 10% of seats taken by women.

Women in positions above the glass ceiling is limited and our appearances are continuously objectified for the pleasure of men. Tits are everywhere.

What are your thoughts on page three? 

Mixed. I have no problem with the women choosing to model because really, most people do most things for money.... and the money is good. If page three were to be banned many of these women could be put out of work.  'Page 3' itself isn't something I get angry about and, despite all the bad press, I'm a big believer in the freedom of the press. I don't have much of a problem with porn magazines being on shelves either.... we live in a liberal state and pornography is freedom of speech.

BUT. And it's a big but. I hate, hate, hate, what pornographic images do in terms of objectifying women. As I suggested above, women are turned into sexual objects and the expectations for flat stomachs, perfect boobs, and a 'thigh gap' are brandished on billboards, posters, adverts, and magazines. But it must be noted that it's not JUST porn. I think the fashion magazines and the industry at large can be just as bad.... using excessive airbrushing and size zero models is something I really don't like. It's something I really struggle with when I go to fashion week.

I think the pressure of girls looking 'good' for their boyfriends stems from both magazines and porn. The whole thing with being completely hairless stems solely from the gratification of the male. I for one, would never fancy looking like my gentials are those of a three year old.

So really, I don't like what naked photos DO but blaming page three won't take the pressures women are surrounded by away. Women posing 'sexily' exists in a lot more than just tabloid papers. Much more would need to be done than taking away page 3 and there's a fine line between protecting women via banning such images and censorship.

Is sexisim an everyday occurance? 
-Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Everything from childrens toys such as 'boy' and 'girl' lego and kindereggs to fairytales (as mentioned in the clip above) involving pretty blonde-haired, blue eyed princesses in beautiful ballgowns being saved by the brave knight in shining armour embeds expectations and limitations to gender roles at an early age. The terminology directed at women "ladies first", and being polite for the sake of 'ladies', even calling them 'flower' all comes from a patronising, derogitive light.

Trouble is, a lot of it goes unnoticed.

What womens 'issue' needs to be publicised to help awareness? 
-FGM. "Female Gential Mutilation".

Otherwise known as female circumcision. It is an ancient practice, dating back to 500 BC, originating in Africa but now occurs all over the world. FGM involves the removal of the clitorous and labias and the tightening of the entrance to the vaginal canal (where the penis goes). It is done entirely for the benefit and pleasure of the man as it often stops women from enjoying sex and enhances the enjoyment of the males experience.

It has been illegal to perform FGM in this country since 1985 but no prosecutions have ever been made- very little is done to stop it from happening and very few people actually know what it is.

There is currently a campaign raising awareness of the cause to stop it from happening and it will be the focus of my next article on this blog.

Do you support positive discrimination?
-Yes.

If a man is clearly better suited to the job than the woman, then hire the man. But if the woman is equally qualified and is as deserving of the job as the man, then choose the woman and do so based on her sex. Inequality has been the pinnacle of society for centuries and the only way to quickly turn it around is to discriminate positively.

It's not PC but being PC can often cause more harm than good.

How would you reduce sexisim if you had the ability to do so? 
- I'd start with young people because they're the future. Embedding a mindset at an early age is the best way to carry equality onto future generations. I'd ban companies from producing 'girl'/'boy' versions of toys.... no more pink lego.

In schools, I'd make sure that issues surrounding prejudices are taught from an early age and the unrealistic portrayal of women via pornography would be included in sex education.

Dealing with the issue head on is how to go about tackling it.

***

So basically, I think I disagree with everything that dear Angela says in the interview. And when I clicked on the twitter hashtag after watching the video, and stumbling across various vulgar anti-feminist and just plain anti-women tweets, I couldn't help but take a couple on. I thought I'd be able to transform their views with my words of wisdom but it backfired a bit and I was bombarded with tweets that basically told me to pipedown.

Apparently feminism is "stupid":

The last tweet saddens me somewhat. Because it's far from true- it's an ideology. Lets see the female England team on £180,000 a week shall we?


And then there's Paul, The UKIP guy, who tried to justify the below comment as a bit of lighthearted sarcasm.... because, oh, that makes all the difference.

I did start these bits of confrontation so I was prepared for reactions. But the closed-mindedness of it all just shocked me. If you fancy reading all the conversations I had between these two, pop on my twitter, @hannahtheduck.

I could literally go on for ever, and discuss the interview on NewsNight in great depth but I would literally kill my laptop in the process so I'll stop here, with the uplifting comment that feminism is arrogant. Of course.

Get a grip Jonathan.

Ok. I'm done now.




Hannah Riley.
@hannahtheduck