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.....

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)

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