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

The Desire to be Normal

I've just spent a few minutes led fully dressed, sprawled out on top of the duvet, staring out the window watching the silhouette of an oak tree, breathing deeply, desperately trying to relax myself, whilst willing the misery to ooze out of my body. And secretly, swimming away at the back of my mind was an overwhelming desire to be normal.

I wasn't sure where to post this set of ramblings- on this 'political' blog or on my other one which focuses on fashion and my random exploits both in this country and abroad- but since I've written a mere two articles on here, and considering that emotions are becoming increasingly dragged into the realms of politics.... this feels appropriate.  

Like every other person on this planet, I get upset. But nobody ever really seems to write about, or even open up about, the fact that when things aren't going smoothly, they'll sit down and sob uncontrollably, or they'll tuck themselves up and cry themselves to sleep. I've done both. Countless times. Tonight being one of those occasions.

As a recently turned nineteen year old, I count myself very lucky to be a teenager who has no qualms about their appearance, my body doesn't bother me in the slightest, not because I think I'm beautiful- mainly because I don't really pay much attention to how I look in terms of my face shape, or the positioning of eyes, or my random freckles, and my odd shaped bum, because frankly, as long as I keep in decent shape, I don't really care. I frequently stroll around the house in the nude and every now and then on a Wednesday evening I strip right down to my birthday suit and stand completely starkers for a life-drawing class. The 'issues' that I do have, are more mental than they are physical. 

Anyone who knows me can establish that I'm not a 'typical teenager' right down from the clothes I wear to my eccentric persona, and my quirky and largely unknown idols, to my confident people skills and the mere fact I single-handedly started a business at the age of 16. I have never done anything to fit in, or to be accepted by any group of people; the outlook is part of the reason why I was bullied quite severely during my last year at primary school, which consequently evolved into being the reason why I fiercely stand up for myself. But what is often missed, or perhaps just not noted, is that I don't not conform on purpose. I never go out of my way not to fit in; I'm just a freak of nature.

In fact, there have been moments, such as tonight, where I'll sit and wish that I was a conventional girl. I don't hate myself, there are simply elements of me that I wish weren't here- they make my stomach churn and my skin crawl. These are the feelings that rise from the dark and take over my senses in the midst of my panic attacks, screaming fits, and uncontrollable states of crying. In the height of it all I sit and pray to a God I don't even believe in to take away my bad bits and turn me into a teenager who wants nothing more than a future filled with a 9-5 job, two kids, a loving husband, coffee mornings, and a yearly planner, and to be the kind of girl who wants a big white wedding. To be societies normal. And I know it's all relative and subjective and perhaps there is no such thing, but that's what normal is.... isn't it?   

Without sounding pretentious, I'm a very complicated person in the sense that I'm a human make-up of contradictions; I'm confident whilst having a bottomless pitt full of self doubt, I'm sensitive yet I'm physically quite tough, and I'm extremely bubbly but I suffer from anxiety which sometimes causes me to be a very unhappy person. I'll be the first to admit that other than a fear of homelessness and failing, and a desperation to be happy with my career, I have absolutely no idea what to do with my life. And that terrifies me more than anything else in the world.  

Sometimes a fake-tan smothered, Hollister wearing, conventional teenager is everything I wish for. Eventually, I'll see my senses and realise that I'll always be a big 'paleskinned-feminist-hollisterboycotter-freak' at heart. I am who I am, and when I'm sane and not wallowing in my own misery I honestly do embrace it and really, I am fully aware that my desire to be normal will never be worth it.     

I think I feel these things because it's not often said that being insecure, unhappy, and being sick to death of your own company is a completely normal feeling. It's far more normal than to be like everyone else. And when I take a step back and rationally try to evaluate the pros and cons of being me, and being societies idea of normal, I'd take me- and all the emotional baggage- every time. Because if we're all genetically unique then where's the sense in mimicking somebody else? My new advice to myself, and to you, is to embrace your imperfections and be entirely yourself. Wear, say, do, feel, and love what and who you want (as long as its not prejudice because that will really get on my tits).

The next time a cup of tea isn't enough to solve your misery, and rock bottom has been hit, or you happen to be an onlooker of someone driving themselves to despair, engulfed in a state of negativity that is seemingly unsolvable and becoming somewhat irritating, remember these pieces of advice from little old, insignificant me.

Firstly, Read this quote and realise that depression isn't selfish:

“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise. Make no mistake about people who leap from burning windows. Their terror of falling from a great height is still just as great as it would be for you or me standing speculatively at the same window just checking out the view; i.e. the fear of falling remains a constant. The variable here is the other terror, the fire’s flames: when the flames get close enough, falling to death becomes the slightly less terrible of two terrors. It’s not desiring the fall; it’s terror of the flames. And yet nobody down on the sidewalk, looking up and yelling ‘Don’t!’ and ‘Hang on!’, can understand the jump. Not really. You’d have to have personally been trapped and felt flames to really understand a terror way beyond falling.” 

- David Foster Wallace

Instead of showing annoyance, be understanding, and if you are the person feeling trapped and can see a tunnel with an end but no light, feel what you have to feel; don't try and hide from or rush through your emotions. Understand yourself a little more and realise that it's ok to freak out, and it's even more ok to be you. 

Secondly, stick to your own mind and don't doubt what you think is best for yourself. If everyone else thinks differently, it maybe the case that you only look mad because you're the only sane one and everyone around you is insane.

For instance, I know that if I were to stay on the treadmill that education is taking me on and start university in September, because that's what people do, I won't be happy. I'll be as trapped as the person in a burning building. I need to be sure of what course to do in order to spend that much money on it. And to be honest, I can't bare the thought of being in a system that makes me feel so alienated for another three years. University isn't for everyone. I'm sick of ticking boxes and filling out application forms to please other people. From this point onwards, I will research, apply for, and enroll on courses only if I feel I'm doing it for myself. The only person I, or you, need to make proud is yourself- irrespective of what your parents, teachers, or society wants for you. Don't follow suit if it doesn't make you happy. There is no rush- you have your whole life ahead of you- enjoy now. 

If you're too concerned with the future, you might miss the amazing glistening thing that's currently in the corner of your eye.  

Finally, Popping pills is not the answer, that's just a money making idea of solving things. Those things are evil, they make you 'steady'... everything is grey and nothing is happy just as nothing is sad. Pills don't cure anything, they just mask emotions and turn you into something you're not. I hate the idea of being the result of a manufactured pill; becoming a processed, controlled human. It's not natural. 

And with that, I come to the end of my stream of consciousness, and already I feel refreshed in refusing the normalcy that I yearned for just an hour or so ago. And hopefully, this has spread a similar feeling to whomever may be reading this. I don't want to say I've been 'deep', I just think I've been honest, there are negative connotations associated with seriousness; people are skeptical of articles delving into deeper emotions, but I don't really give a shit.

Have a nice a day.

Taken for my final Fine Art Project at A-level. Focusing on Mental Health Disorders.
Laura Hollingworth by Hannah Riley.

Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

"Hashtag" Twitter Silence.

Since having watched this a while ago I've decided that, on a good day, I am a young Caitlin Moran. I love the woman. She and I have a lot of similarities and as she started the whole '#twittersilence' thing, I thought that publishing this post at midnight on the 5th August 2013, would be the perfect way for me to mark the ending of an all important 24 hour silent protest.

This all started with Caroline Criado-Perez's campaign which ran to ensure that at least one British woman would feature as the face of our five, ten, twenty, fifty pound notes and alas!... the Bank of England announced that the wonderful Jane Austen would feature on the new tenners. But of course this all turned sour.

It was shocking enough to hear that some grotesque individuals hurled abuse at Perez- threats to rape and murder her- that eventually reached fifty an hour. But what was more shocking, as Caitlin Moran outlined in her blog post last night (well actually two nights ago as we are technically now into the 5th August), was that the number of threats by these twitter trolls increased AFTER an arrest was made.

And to give a few examples, here are the list of abusive tweets, put together by Moran for her article, that were sent non-stop to Caroline Criado-Perez: 

“I love it when the hate machine swarms.” 
“Rape rape rape rape rape rape.”
“Everyone report @CriadoPerez for rape and murder threats and also being a cunt #malemasterrace.” 
“Wouldn’t mind tying this bitch to my stove. Hey sweetheart – give me a shout when you’re ready to be put in your place.”
“HEY GIRL – WANNA THROW THAT PUSSY TOWARDS THE BLACK MESSIAH?”
“Rape threats? Don’t flatter yourself. Call the cops. We’ll rape them too. YOU BITCH! YO PUSSY STANK!”

The threats quickly expanded to include MP Stella Creasy, who backed Perez's campaign, along with TV critic Grace Dent and Guardian fashion columnist Hadley Freeman- all three women were sent bomb threats and Creasy was sent a disturbing image of a white-mask-wearing-man brandishing a large knife as a death threat. As Moran explained, these women have been told to "“block” the abusers, and get on with their lives."

And that's going to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside again is it? Of course not. 

The fact that the ugly trend escalated AFTER an arrest was made, goes to show that the steps made towards protecting twitter users- who use it for the right reasons- have been far and few between, and all of them too late. Many people shun social networking sites because "this kind of thing happens".... that doesn't mean we should let it happen. A very small minority of twitter users have set up accounts to terrorise women and unfortunately their laptops and keyboards are acting as shields protecting them from the law; these twitter trolls are the modern day 'untouchables'.  

Not enough has been done and that's why the protest took place today. 

In fact, today saw Mary Beard being the latest target of twitter trolls as she was sent tweets telling her that her house was going to blow up. Prior to this, Beard was sent the following: "Retweet this you filthy old slut. I bet your vagina is disgusting."  This one was sent a few days ago, when it was more difficult to report abuse, but today Mary Beard tweeted the fact that she attempted to fill in the report form and it failed to work; this is AFTER twitter has promised the new "report abuse" button with every tweet that is published on the site.

I accept that twitter cannot be held responsible for what people publish on their site, however, they are more than responsible for the difficulties in reporting abuse and their slow speed in reacting to what has been reported. An official apology from the networking site is all well and good but it HAS to materialise. This is serious, and yet to me, it seems that twitter is trying to distance itself from the problem. The targeted women have simply been left to manually block users that are sending abuse, and at 50 tweets an hour, it can all be too soul destroying to face.      

So why silence over throwing out masses of joyous and feminist tweets?

As a feminist and a gob on a stick myself, I made, perhaps the more surprising decision (certainly in the eyes of my mother) to join in with the 24 hour silence, backing up the rather more influential types such as Clare Balding, Alice Arnold, and  Martina Navratilova. 

I saw silence to be the perfect protest to the tragic bombardment of disgusting, confidence-destroying messages that took control of twitter- the otherwise brilliant online tool for communicating and networking. I think Moran summed it up perfectly in saying that the walk-out would "focus minds at Twitter to come up with their own solution to the abusers of their private company." And I really hope it did. 

Moran went onto outline the fact that popular social networking sites can become looservilles within the space of a couple of months. Twitter could easily become the next Bebo rather than the next 'Big Thing'... there's always something new around the corner waiting to be the next online craze. And so with there having been a mass of people- including and endless list of celebrities- not tweeting a thing for the last 24 hours, the heads at twitter HQ will have been knocked together- with force- to come up with the best solution possible in monitoring the evil minority and, in turn, protecting twitter at large. No more sweeping under the carpet.

As much as I understand the other side of the argument, that we should be shouting and screaming, instead of, what is argued to be, sitting and doing nothing- I think a lack of tweets will have turned more of the right heads than a surge of tweets would have done. 

As long as there are people tweeting, the twitter people are happy; if we stop- they're fucked.

And to the lovely lady who posted this for the world to see:

Caitlin Moran did not tell, or force anyone to do anything; she just threw an idea out there and that idea became popular. She simply adopted a technique that twitter was made for- promoting, connecting, and inspiring.



“Seeing her sitting there unresponsive makes me realize that silence has a sound.” 
- Jodi Picoult


Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck

Zimmerman Trial: 'Above the fray of Race'

A response to Zimmerman's acquittal. New York City Protest.
Photo credits to Hannah Riley, www.hannahriley.co.uk 

Two wrongs don't make a right. This should be taken into account by Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP, who has written one of the many articles (Louise Mensch article can be read here) stating that Zimmerman's aquittal is in no way to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was black. I was originally going to write this article- the first on my political blog- explaining why I think the case was in every sense a race issue, but after reading hers, I will do so with a response to Mensch's article and the subsequent comments from her readers. Not only do I disagree, but much of Mensch's argument is based on the sentiment that Zimmerman should be let go because Florida's gun laws are 'wrong'. To me, that makes very little sense and involves even less logic. She stated:

"If George Zimmerman had not had a gun, the worst that would have happened here is a fist-fight. If Florida had not had a Stand Your Ground law, possibly manslaughter charges could have been proven." 

My response to this concurs with a readers comment who bluntly points out that the article is "so unimpressive and totally misses the point". The reader goes onto to stay that  "regardless of gun laws, Zimmerman bears responsibility for this young man's death and a more developed society would punish him".

It is a weak, and a surprisingly immature argument from a former politician to try and justify a murder by saying that Zimmerman was merely acting within laws that Mensch herself acknowledges to be wrong. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right.

"A more developed society" is certainly what we're lacking. In the article, it feels as though Mensch is refusing to acknowledge that racism is an issue here, it's as though she's 'above the fray' of race itself. There is no need to put on the front of being colour blind; the backlash against Zimmerman's acquittal was because America is far from that. And some of the comments below her article are saddening enough to prove it. It's really quite sad. In fact, Mensch labels racial politics as "simply disgusting". I see it as quite the opposite. Why do we think we can ignore the fact that racism exists when it is a prevalent part of every day life in America. It is here too, when I was at school, causal racism was the norm among peers- I was the one of the 'strange ones' because I despised it when people referred to Asian people as 'Pakis' and made jokes about Turbans. Yet Mensch dismisses racial politics as being vile and refuses to tackle it head on. Surely racial politics is a good thing? If we can acknowledge racism, we can combat it and create equality. I mean, just look at Congress- there is just one black Senator, and yet American society is 14% black. Racism is rooted deep into America's history and they have failed in removing it.

A reader going under the name "Phyllis" has posted a number of comments in response to Mensch's article, comments that are in no doubt racist. He is an example of the fact that the case is surrounded with "racial politics"- whether Mensch likes it or not- the case has revealed a number of worms that were hiding beneath the very thin, non-racist surface that American society was hiding behind. 'The threatening black teenager' features in many of his posts; a profile that was created by white people who feel threatened by the increase in ethnic minorities. There seems to be an inherent issue with this, white racists struggle with the fact 'white supremacy' doesn't reign and they feel vulnerable by the escalating percentage of ethnic minorities in America. 

Phyllis describes Martin as a "statistic", a representation of young black people, and goes on to describe photographs of Martin in which he poses with large wads of cash, and in one photo has "raised middle fingers". The reader goes onto to explain Martin's publicised increased interests in drugs via social networking sites. Phyllis attempts to paint the picture of a foul individual and is suggestive that Martin was in fact the criminal and in some way deserved what was coming.

I'm a teenager. I know many people of different races and different sexes who have experimented with drugs and who have tweeted, and published photos of their experiences. This does not make them potential murderers, nor does it make them representatives of teenagers. They represent themselves and I am represented by myself. Being black shouldn't have made Martin any more threatening than a white kid doing the same things.

Look at Mensch, she has publicly admitted that she got into drugs as a teenager and she is now a successful author and former politician; a highly respectable person. I doubt that looking at photos of her youth that Phyillis would draw the conclusion that she was a 'yob' and therefore had it in her to murder someone.

Stop turning on the victim.

The supposed 'rebellious Trayvon' in the photographs was not with him that night. He was alone, walking home, and he was shot dead because of it.

The reader, Phyllis, goes onto say:

"Zimmerman saw a full-grown man, a druggy, a wannabe street fighter, the tattooed, gold-grilled, self-dubbed “No_Limit_Nigga.”

I ask, how?

How could have Zimmerman possibly drawn the conclusion that a lone teenager making his way home was out to cause harm. Zimmerman is known to have said that Martin was acting "suspiciously". The suspicion was that he was black. 

I believe that this case became a race issue the moment Zimmerman started following Trayvon Martin. If hasty generalisations such as 'the threatening black teenager' can be made, then lets turn to Zimmerman's back story. Two weeks previous, Zimmerman had followed another black youth, this time correctly helping the police identify and catch a burglar. From this, he'd built a profile of a criminal, stereotyped black teenagers and saw fit to follow and consequently shoot dead a harmless boy.

Use all the pictures and social networking comments you want to against Trayvon Martin but the point is this: Only in the possession of a black teenager can a packet of skittles and a can of iced tea become a lethal weapon.

Many who oppose my viewpoint turn the blame to Martin for attacking Zimmerman. A fight did happen, I do not deny that, the screams from the 911 call are enough to show that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting before the shot was fired. However, the details are clearly vague with many different people trying to draw up their version of the 'clear picture' from a string of facts and a mass of grey areas. For instance, in Mensch's article she tries to justify Zimmerman's gunfire, as do many of her readers. Here's one of the many points mentioned in Mensch's article.

"The forensic pathologist who corroborated Zimmerman’s account of self-defence after he was attacked by stating the gunshot was fired from beneath the victim."

The issue here is that we do not know how long Zimmerman was "beneath" the victim. He may have simply waited for the right moment to fire the shot in order to maximise his defence case when evaluating the "Stand Your Ground Law". And if that's the case, it clearly worked. 

It is also mentioned in a comment beneath the article that Zimmerman only fired once and therefore only intended to 'hurt' Martin, and he apparently did not mean to kill him. OR did he just have a precise shot and had every intention of killing Martin knowing that people would side with the neighbourhood watch guy over the black school boy?

Points such as these have many holes in them and it's upsetting to see that many people are trying to depict Martin as 'the threatening black teenager'. The evidence above is not enough to justify Zimmerman killing Martin, nor should it be used to create a negative image of the teenager.  

Because that's what it's turned into; Zimmerman vs. Martin. This is actually about how the justice system is carried out; how unfairly it is skewed against black people. This case has everything to do with race and it's odd that people are trying to branch out to other reasoning and issues involved. 

The justice system in America is historically skewed against Blacks and this can be summed up with just two statistics showing the disproportionate amount of black people in prison in America. The 2010 census shows blacks compromise 13.6% of US population whereas they made up 40% of inmates in the previous year. The amount of black people living in the US is wildly mismatched by the fact that 'African-American' is the highest ethnicity in prisons. More specifically, looking at Florida's conviction rates where Zimmerman's trial took place, it was found that in an all white jury, blacks are convicted 16% more often than whites. To say that the justice system in America is not inherently racist is absurd, and to say that this case involves very little about 'race issues' is extremely blinkered. 


And as for Mensch's comments about tweeters being "morons" who can't articulate their argument into saying WHY the case is racist, she has half a point. But let me first point out that she addresses the people 'defending' Trayvon as morons but does not mention the amount of racist slurs that were tweeted against him- these are the tweets that most people would consider to be much more moronic than those that are against racism.  But I do agree that many people protesting against the verdict wouldn't be able to form a decent enough argument to stand against hers. But neither can many people on the other side of the debate. And to be quite honest, many of the people she labels as 'morons' are simply trying to put their voice forward against racism as a whole. The majority are not causing hate and they aren't making problems- it's a positive message so there's really no need to to tarnish them by name calling. 

There are parts of Lousie Mensch's article that I agree with. The prosecution was poor; the case was practically handed to them on a plate and yet they failed to succeed in any of the charges brought against Zimmerman. But the fact that there were poor attorneys on the case doesn't mean that the trial had nothing to do with race. I also disagree with Florida's gun laws but, as already mentioned, I do not like how Mensch uses them in her argument. Nor do I think that the protests are aimed at the six jurors- the case has been taken by the public as an example to show that the justice system as a whole in America is skewed, biased, and racist. It needs to change. I do not think that the protesters were necessarily aiming their angst directly at the six women, but at the case as a whole and at racism itself.

It is a recurrent theme to act as though cases are 'more' about race, as with the Rochdale sex gang who targeted white girls, but it's simple and people are just afraid to accept it. If we can accept it, we can change it. Pretending to be better, or above the the matter in hand is damaging because society will just end up sweeping racism under the carpet once more and this case will come around again, in a different form, but with the same debate.   

The only way to end racism is to end racism.


Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck