Long Time Coming: Institutionalised Racism

This blog post, which I present to you today has been a long time coming, and I hope you can leave feeling more educated on a matter that is, quite frankly, disgraceful.

I am, of course, talking about the Ferguson case where a white cop has shoot down a black teenager and has managed to get away with it scot free and the Eric Garner case where, once again, a black teenager has been killed by a brutal attack at the hands of a man who is supposedly in charge of the safety of American civilians and has suffered no consequence.

First we'll deal with the facts.

FERGUSON CASE

The only real statement received by the officer in question, Darren Wilson, obviously describes the situation as a direct threat to his own safety. He says that he was just trying to chase up a report he had received about a robbery. The report described two black teenagers wearing hoodies. Nothing else was said apparently, so this was all he had to go on.

Darren Wilson says he had requested of them both to stop on the sidewalk so he could question them, but the victim, Mike Brown got very angry with this and started hitting Wilson. Wilson describes him as looking like a "demon". Wilson, fearing for his life, took out the "Only weapon suitable" and fired shots. He states that there were some blanks fired first before a bullet was fired into Brown. All through this Brown was trying to take the gun from Wilson.

Once Brown had started running (after having been shot once in the chest) Wilson followed, deciding to keep an eye on him in case he was responsible for the robbing. When Brown entered an alley and turned around Wilson described Brown as looking very aggressive and he shot again and again until the fatal shot was fired into Brown's skull.

White Police Officer Darren Wilson characterized black teenager Michael Brown as a Demon. This is very significant. It reveals the unconscious racist mindset of the police officer. The devil is a demon; he is black. As such police officer Wilson feels justified in killing Michael Brown. The unconscious mind of Wilson reveals the intentions. The killing of Michael Brown was a racist act.

Tiffany Mitchell, who was picking up a colleague to go to work, said she saw some of the confrontation. Wilson and Brown were "tussling through the window." "It looked as if the kid was pulling away and the officer was pulling him in." "A shot was fired through the window."

 

Piaget Crenshaw, Mitchell's co-worker, said she saw what happened from her apartment while waiting for Mitchell: "The officer was just trying to pull him into the vehicle – that's just what it looked like."

"The cop gets out of his vehicle shooting," Mitchell said. "(Brown's) body jerked as if he was hit from behind, and he turned around, and he put his hands up. ... The cop continued to fire until he just dropped down to the ground, and his face just smacks the concrete."

 

Crenshaw: "He started chasing after the boy. I'm hearing shots fired ... one did graze him. ... At the end he just turned around ... and then was shot multiple times."

 

These accounts, along with those supplied by the other teenager present highlight the severity of this case and, if nothing else, the case should have been investigated further by the court, but it wasn't and the fact remains, the police officer Darren Wilson, was let off too easily with no repercussions whilst one family has to grieve the loss of a son with no comfort that justice has been served.

 

ERIC GARNER

 

Eric Garner was caught by the police attempting to break up a fight that occurred in New York. When the police confronted him he spoke back, tried to defend himself from their verbal attack against him, but Garner was not willing to let himself be pushed around when he knew he was in the right. The police, who are there to "protect and serve" were not happy with this and place Garner in a choke hold after slamming a knee into his neck and repeatedly bashing his head against the wall.

 

Garner, who was by no means a man in excellent shape, repeatedly told the officers, "I can't breathe!" but they didn't listen, they continued to hold him and choke him until Garner eventually died after a cardiac arrest. This unprovoked attack could have been avoided if the police hadn't been so offended that a black man, who was doing no wrong, decided to defend his rights.

 

Garner did not resist the choke hold at any point during the confrontation and all he could do whilst more than 5 officers pinned him down was beg for help... He did not receive this.

 

This case has less grey area than the Ferguson case. Eric Garner was wrongfully murdered by the police force in New York and as a man with 6 children and 2 grandchildren plus an entire nationality scared to go out on the streets, I have to ask myself, what has our world come to?

 

At the end of the day, there is no way for me to ever truly understand the level of oppression that black people are feeling as of now, but I can certainly say without a doubt that I m ashamed to say that my nationality is still not over this discrimination that has haunted our world for generations and I can only hope that by never forgetting what has happened and by standing up to racism seen in every day I can help the world we live in progress further. Because black lives do matter and everyone deserves the right to breathe.

 

If you have any questions or disagree with any of my points then please feel free to comment,

 

Until next time,

 

Stephanie

Bye Bye Michael Gove.

Dearly Beloved, we are gathered here today to celebrate the firing of Michael Gove as the Education Secretary in the UK. He will not be sorely missed.

As I am sure my constant readers will know, I am not a fan of Mr Michael Gove as I think the only thing he can do is screw over the UK's education system. Luckily for us, he has stepped down and a new woman has stepped up to the plate for her chance at reforming education for the better.

Her name: Nicky Morgan

Her task: Fix the mess Gove has left her

Nicky Morgan has made her way into parliament very quickly, only being elected in 2010, but, thanks to David Cameron's cabinet reshuffle in a bid to win more votes, she has been promoted to Education Secretary. The Conservatives have never been great with allowing women onto the team, despite Margaret Thatcher (the only female Prime Minister we have ever had) being one of them. Morgan is one of only two mothers who are in the latest cabinet which I think is an outrage seeing as having a child and sending it through the education system would give our politicians a better idea of what we go through... That being said most Torys end up going to private school anyway.

On the subject of Conservatives' belief system she has spoken against her party in saying that they need to "hate less" Morgan said in January the party needed to have a more constructive message than simply: "we're against this, we're anti-that, we don't like them, we don't want them here, we don't want them doing this." This, for me, makes her seem like a great choice for the person helping out the future generations.

However, things are not all peachy keen with the new Education Secretary. She voted against Gay marriage stating that: "I totally support civil partnerships and that same-sex relationships are recognised in law. But marriage, to me, is between a man and a woman." and she has also campaigned for the upper limit of abortion to go down from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.

Overall, I think the only thing we can do, despite me disagreeing with some of her morals, is wait and see if she can clean up the mess before the 2015 elections mean Cameron and his archaic party get the boot.

As always, thanks for listening and feel free to give me your own opinions below.

Stephanie.

The Education System (UK)

I am currently a 17 year old female working my way through the UK's corrupted education system whilst Michael Gove (God save us all) messes around with not only my future, but that of my younger siblings.

The first time I ever heard about Michael Gove was at the end of Year 10 when I was informed that my classmates and I would have to take all our controlled assessments again in Year 11, ruining the original plan set out by our teachers. Why? Because Michael no-idea-how-to-run-the-education-system Gove decided to raise the English grade boundaries by 9 marks leaving me with a grade that was two marks less that I should have got (I went down from an A to a C).

The original system would have meant that we would have done most of our CAs in Year 10 and then one or two in Year 11, leaving us with plenty of time to prepare for our exams. Seems fair enough right? Not for Michael Gove.

The new system meant we had two or three weeks after our CAs were all finished to prepare for the exams and I came out with a horribly low grade. You see, I got an A* in my CAs, but with my exam grades taken into account I got a B which isn't bad, but take into account that my exam would have had to be a very low C at the most to bring it down that much.

Which brings me onto the second part of the education system that annoys me, the exams. While I am aware exams are a good way to determine who tests better than others, I don't agree that we should base our entire future off of a grade we got from writing for up to 2 and a half hours without any available resources. That isn't going to happen in real life situations is it? Coursework and CAs are definitely a more reliable representation of how well we will perform in the workplace, especially for subjects that involve essay writing (English, Philosophy, History etc.)

Therefore, another reason for me to take a strong dislike to Michael Gove is his policy to get rid of all forms of CAs and Coursework and leave students with exams at the end of both GCSE or A level years. This means that students will have to remember all of the information for the entire course after two years. I could barely cope with one and before my year they had January exams to split it up as well. Even they found it difficult. Exams are getting harder than ever and the world of work is restricted to those who do well in them, but there are plenty of people like me who can't succeed in exams. I just can't, no matter how much time I spend revising, do well in exams and I feel as though alienating others like me is the wrong way to go.

The next, and most recent development in education policy I want to complain about, is the banning of any literature that isn't British English. This means Classic American Authors such as John Steinbeck, Harper Lee, F.Scott Fitzgerald and J.D Salinger, will not be taught to the children of England. Whilst there are some fantastic English authors such as Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen etc, there is so much more to the world of Literature that needs to be taught to students to prevent them from becoming close-minded adults who are unaware of the amazing literature that exists outside the borders of a, frankly, quite racially elitist country.

Finally, I want to talk about tuition fees, this is one of the most famous decisions made by the current government in Britain and is one of the reasons the Lib Dems will hopefully not be in power after the next election. In the UK we went from a £1,000 tuition fee in 1998 to a £9,000 to date. I am aware in places like the US it gets even worse than this and I think it is one of the most frustrating part of being a student.

We are told from a very young age that we need to go to school, get good grades, go to college, get good grades, go to university, finish with a degree, go into the world of work, pay off all the money you owe now you have achieved what they practically force you to achieve. I have found, after researching other countries where I can study that there are places in Europe where the students get a free education right up until the point they choose to leave the system and there are multiple routes into the top positions.

For me, England has become a very unattractive place to study my chosen degree and I would rather study somewhere like Germany or Holland where there system, though different, is less corrupted and focuses more on the students than the fat cats who have too much power.

As always feel free to ask me any questions in the comments,

Until next time,

Stephanie

My Relationship with a Working Mother

My mother is a retail worker, always has been, probably always will be. I don't have the normal relationship with my mother most teenagers have with their parents, but that doesn't make it any less special to me.

Let me explain.

This is a very personal topic for me to address online, but I feel that society often thinks of the types of relationships you can have with one or both of your parents is either very loving and providing or abusive and disconnected. For me, this hasn't been the case.

For as long as I can remember I have always wanted more attention from my mum than I receive, this comes partly from the amount of children she had to raise (3 from my father's previous marriage for a while and then 4 of her own) and the fact that both of my full-brothers have behaviour problems. Add onto that that I am one of the middle children, the results are conclusive, I didn't receive that much attention.

I am not saying in anyway that my mother neglected me, she was brilliant, kind and, above all, she cared for all of her children and this is where the problem lay. Whilst my mum was out working I would be in school, but when we (me and my siblings) were all old enough to walk home and be left at home on our own my mother would take on longer hours and would work for more days so that she could afford to send us all on school trips, buy our clothes, food etc.

During the first four years of my life my mum and dad went through a divorce, I have never been able to remember my dad being a full-time part of my life and a part of me will always grieve that, but we still went round to his for the weekends and slept over every other weekend (Boys one week, girls the next and so on). For my mum this meant 4 hours of peace (which usually meant housework) and then only half the kids to deal with for a night. This did result in me getting more attention than I would usually so I was happier with that, but I never really cared or realised this was as good as it got.

At the time this was all happening I was blissfully unaware of how it would affect my relationship with my mother, as she strove to make sure I had the same chances all the other kids had, in the future.

Now I bring you to present day.

I am working every Saturday, at least, for four hours, earning my own money so my mum doesn't have to take on the hours at work to provide for the family as I can now provide for myself, but she still does because she still insists that I don't have to pay any rent for living under her roof (Despite my offers of money) this is why I say, my mum's intentions have only ever been to care for her children.

However, I would argue me and my mum have a relationship with no obvious signs of love. If you were on the outside looking in the only thing that really connects us is the way we look similar. I love my mum more than anyone else in the world and I am thankful for every day I get to spend with her, but it isn't something we say to each other a lot.

Me and my mum don't sit and gossip about who I like, who is annoying me, any boys or girls on the horizon for my love life. She isn't always there for me when I need a shoulder to cry on and I can't rely on my siblings for help as the only two who live with me are younger and don't really understand. I can't vent when I get home if something happened at college that has particularly set off a nerve because I do the dinner every night for my family and, yes, sometimes I feel like a second mum, but without the financial burden. When my sister wouldn't go to school I sat down with her to find out why it was she didn't want to go in and convinced her to go in the end.

I don't want my mum to feel bad for this happening, but the fact is, it does and I understand while I am the one my sister might choose to go to when it comes to emotional support, without my mum I wouldn't have been able to go on all of the school trips I went on and I probably wouldn't have my friends I have now as the independence and confidence I have gained from taking on the role in my family I have taken on is a huge part of my personality.

I digress.

The point is, me and my mum have a complicated relationship that works as almost equals, until I do something wrong then she is the parent and what she says goes. All I can hope for is that, once I have moved out and my siblings are earning their own money, my mum can cut back her working hours and relax because she has done so much for me and I couldn't possibly thank her enough.

As I am literally crying I say to you, find someone you love and tell them. I am trying to build up a new relationship with my mum where I can go to her for gossip sessions like my friends inform me they do with their respective guardians or find the time to sit with her and chat, but it is hard work and I think people are often too focused on their own lives to look at the relationships they hold with those closest to them.

As always if you have any questions then feel free to ask me,

Until next time,

Stephanie

Apologies

It has been so long since I updated, but just letting you know that I have a new blog post in the making called "My Relationship with a Working Mother" and I am excited to see the reaction so stay tuned!

The "N" word

There has been a lot of controversy over Jeremy Clarkson, UK presenter and newspaper journalist, saying the "N" word when reciting the poem "Eeny Meeny Miny Mo". I have watched the video and whether he actually says it or not is not clear as he was mumbling.

Clarkson recently released a video apologising for the mistake and he claims that he was trying his best to conceal the word that is in the original poem. He has said that they did the shot in 3 takes. In the first two he tried to mumble the word and make it incoherent and in the final take he replaced it with "teacher". He has told anyone who will listen that he is extremely sorry for any offense he has cause and assured us that it wasn't meant to sound like he was saying it at all. His apology has been pretty quick and he has dealt with the issue very well.

My problem comes in a different form.

I am appalled that Clarkson is receiving so much hatred for something that he may or may not have done when rappers and celebrities use this word so often that it might as well be a part of their dictionary. Yes it is slightly different coming from a middle-aged white man, but if the term is considered offensive then why use it at all?

There is a lot of horrible terms that probably shouldn't be used, but are. "Chav" as previously discussed is one of them, but you don't see working class people calling each other chavs because it isn't nice. By using the "n" word on each other, black people are giving an excuse for the word to stay in circuit. I know a few people will think I have no right to say that as I, myself, am a white female, but I would 100% argue that language i one of the harshest realities against equality and by getting rid, or at least trying to lessen the use of, the words with negative connotations we can start thinking about everything else.

Clarkson has apologised, so know I believe we can move on from it.

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment and ask any questions.

Until next time,

Stephanie

Demonisation of the Working Class

So the class system has been around in the UK for centuries and one of the biggest issues isn't to do with the money, as I first thought, but the horrible sense of elitism that stems from the class system being so segregated.

In the UK we have "chavs" who are, by urban dictionary definition: "a young lower-class person typified by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of (real or imitation) designer clothes." In England chavs are often described as dangers to society. And, yes, this type of person does exist.

My problem comes from the stereotype that all working class people are chavs and this is what makes the working class seem like they are not worth the time or money the government gives them. 

I am working class. I have friends who are both working and middle class, but they don't label me as a chav or not their equal. (At least I hope not) So why does this stigma arise from?

One reason the working class are often seen as unable to be treated the same as upper or middle class is from the Industrialisation of Britain. We did it rather badly to be completely honest. We segregated the lower classes as the working force from the middle class business men very early. From this came the stigma that we are dirty, we cannot afford nice things, we are awful people that can't cope with the class labels and that eventually developed into the stereotypical "chav" that we see hiding in the alleyways between shops, desperately smoking their last drag of the day before they have to head back to school.

Another reason this subculture developed is because the working class are less fortunate. I speak from experience when I say that watching my mum miss meals so I could be fed and clothed for school the next day was heartbreaking. She still takes 48 hours of minimum wage work a week to help pay for my college fees and tries her hardest to book one holiday for us to go on a year to the next beach town over, but none of this compares to the look of dismay when I had to tell her the reason I had that bruise on my arm was from the boy at the back of the class who called me a chav and told me my family smelt weird. This label chased me through to the end of secondary school.

I wouldn't put myself into the chav subculture purely because I wouldn't consider myself "loutish" and I don't wear designer clothes at all really, imitation or otherwise. I do think chavs as a culture exists, but I don't think they are as common as the ruling classes would have you believe, nor are they a big problem to society, all they want is a little less class discrimination and the bitterness could end with this generation.

Please feel free to leave any comments or ask any questions.

Until next time, 

Stephanie

Men with Breast Cancer?

Yes, men can get breast cancer. Can they run in the Race for Life? No. I think this is a tricky subject to handle because on one hand, men are affected by cancer just as much as women are, but they are not allowed to enter the Race for Life, on the other hand, a big part of the campaign's success is its appeal to women.

On the Cancer Research website one of the most frequently asked questions is "Why is Race for Life a woman- only event?"and the company answer with

"We regularly review our events to make them the best they can be and three years ago we seriously looked at whether we should let men enter Race for Life. However, our research showed that Race for Life’s success is due to its appeal to women as a women-only event and to allow men to enter could bring in less income for the charity’s life saving work."

This does provoke the question, why didn't they start the event with both men and women? 

When the campaign started in 1994 it was created for women to run, jog or walk. I think this was where their problems started. Men's breast cancer was never considered a problem, but Cancer Research has stated that the Race for Life is for all types of cancer. For this reason I think when they came up with idea for a sponsored race they should have considered the fact that men would want to be able to join in.

I sit on the fence a lot with this issue because I think men and women should be equal and, therefore, both be allowed to take part in the fight against cancer, but when you think of the global scale of inequality it makes this small thing that men are upset over seem rather petty. 

Overall I would argue that it has to continue this way because it brings in so much money and perhaps some women would be deterred to run, but they shouldn't be. They should want to run because of the cause, not because of the "sisterhood" they have created by excluding men.

Sorry this is a short one, but as ever, comment below if you have a different opinion or ask any questions you may or may not have.

Until next time,

Stephanie 

Miss Representation

Upon suggestion from a great friend of mine I am going to be watching the documentary "Miss Representation". This is a documentary that explores the way women are under-represented in powerful positions in America and it challenges the media's portrayal of women which, lets face it, is pretty awful.
In this post I am going to be doing a review as I watch the documentary so everything you read will comment on things that have been said and it will be chronologically analysed. However, I encourage you to go and watch it and I will leave a link to the trailer at the end.

So the documentary starts off with a great quote:

"The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any" -Alice Walker.

I think this is a great way to start the documentary because it outlines the reasons why you don't find women in places of high power. They have been raised believing that it can't get better and there is no point in trying to fix any problems they may have.

The documentary then gives the viewers some facts. Including:

• "American teenagers spend 31 hours a week watching TV; 17 hours a week listening to music; 3 hours a week watching movies; 4 hours a week reading magazines and 10 hours a week online"

This is basically highlighting how much of a teenager's life is revolving around media, where they will get fed the misrepresentation of women.

Within the introduction of the documentary they have already covered the basics of the debate they are about to put forward and therefore, I can already tell this is going to be a well-structured argument. I am looking forward to watching the rest.

After addressing the media and pointing out just how corrupt it is there is a short anecdote about a woman with terrible experiences in terms of self worth and how horrible she felt after a certain experience where a peer took advantage of her vulnerability. 

She says "My experiences are unique, my struggle is all to common" which is true. A lot of women do go through what she has been through in terms of sexual abuse or general oppression or even just feeling crap about the way you look after flicking through the latest edition of the newest teen magazine that every little girl is reading.

I don't want to explain the entire documentary, because I feel as though you would get the most benefit from watching it yourself, but what I can say is my opinion on the media and how it portrays women.

As far as I am concerned things are most definitely looking worse for wear in the media department for women. We are targeted as the sex appeal to sell anything from cars to toilet roll. Don't believe me? Google it. For this reason young boys are being brought up in a world where looking at girls as sexual objects is considered natural. No. Stop. 

A lot of men have put forward the point that women tend to sexualise the men they see in the media. For me that would be people like Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hiddleston and (don't hate me) Harry Styles. I find these men attractive, but I don't think they face the same problem women do. For one example, Scarlett Johansson, wonderfully talented actress, but she is always asked about her looks or the romance, never the fact that she can kick butt on the battlefield. Scarlett Johansson is very good at dealing with these questions though so good on her, but still. Tom Hiddleston is never asked about these sorts of things, nor is he every draped across a vehicle, half naked for a photo shoot. Why? Because he is male and therefore not objectified in the same way.

I also want to link you to a great Youtube channel called "FeministFrequency" who deals with media's "tropes". These are things the media has done to women in major film franchises and I strongly suggest watching them to open your eyes to what the media does. See if your favourite films can pass the Bechdel Test.

That's all for now and remember that you can leave a comment stating your opinion or ask me any questions you may or may not have.

Until next time, 

Stephanie

Miss Representation Trailer

FeministFrequency

Hillary Clinton... HOW DARE SHE BE A GRANDMOTHER!

I don't know if any of you are aware, but... *gasp* a woman is running for president in America. Hillary Clinton, former First Woman, has decided to run for office. She has a very long list of policies, of course, addressing all the relevant issues in America. Including: her stance on gun laws, abortions, health care, immigration and many more. Sounds good right? Wrong.

Recently there has been a storm in the media due to the fact that she and Bill Clinton are soon to be grandparents. Apparently this is an awful thing to happen during her campaign? I get it though. How could a woman possibly run for president when she has something private and personal affecting her emotionally? Easily, that's how. Having a child herself might have been a different issue, that can actually take a toll on a woman's way of working, obviously it shouldn't stop them from running for political positions, or any positions for that matter, but it can change things. Becoming a grandparent, however, is not directly affecting her potential to change America so why do people have such a big problem?

My main argument for this being completely flawed as a reason to not run for office is this: She only has this "emotional stability" debacle because she is a woman. Many of the men who were running for office had grandchildren. Mitt Romney has millions of his offspring running around, unfortunately, but no one batted an eyelid. He was able to continue running against Gay Rights, but she shouldn't continue because she might break down in tears over something she is passionate about.

I am going to link you to a very comical video, but it does cover some serious issues. On the Daily Show, Jon Stewart has ten minute rants which I had never seen before. My friend had linked me to one of his topics labelled "The Broads must be Crazy" which was all about women in politics. If you want to see all of my opinions laid out in front of you, he hits the nail on the head.

Now lets talk about why women don't go into politics. This is where feminism comes back in. One of the main arguments against women not having the top positions is "Well they never run for it, you can't vote for what's not running" bullshit. Sorry, but before you start blaming women for not running why don't you consider the reasons behind women not running aka the way society deters them from doing so.

From a very young age, girls are taught to be passive and caring whilst boys are taught to be assertive and aggressive. One of the many ways they are taught this is through giving our children, the future of society, gender specific toys. When I was younger I played with Barbies and toy babies. I was given toy ovens and princess dress up kits, hell, my nick-name was even "Princess", as were a lot of girls, but the difference was, as soon as I decided to be a "tom boy" my parents didn't mind. On the other hand, my brother wasn't allowed to play with my Barbies, my dad didn't let him. My dad didn't let my brother be cuddled or comforted when he fell down. My dad didn't want him to "turn out gay" he wanted him to be "strong" and "manly" and this is what I saw happen. I saw my brother become another one of society's success stories. Now if we watch something sad and I cry, he doesn't, he makes fun of me because as far as he is concerned crying is a weakness. Having emotions is a weakness.

This is the problem women face in schools. The hidden curriculum is a way of subtly hinting that the girls are not supposed to be as assertive in their opinions. They are supposed to do what they are told and when they do they slip under the teacher's radar. When they are out in the playground, if a girl takes control she is labelled as bossy, but she is expected to listen to the boys because it is more acceptable for them to be loud. These issues continue all through compulsory education. I would argue since joining college that has not been as big of an issue for me, but by then it is too late for some people. Some people remain ignorant to the way these gender roles have been indoctrinated into our everyday lives.

If ,by any chance, a woman does get into a powerful enough place in politics, she is often slated by the media, another male-dominated area, for all kinds of things. The one that really stands out for me though is when she takes a stand or makes an order she gets labelled. Labelled "bossy" just like in school. Her arguments and opinions are all undermined by one word, she can't fight against that either because then she is "PMSing" and "isn't in control of her emotions".

What is the world coming to when a woman can't express her opinions openly and freely? When she can't have grandchildren lest she be emotionally affected by the change in her life? When a woman in power is a rare occurrence?

Thank you for taking time to listen to my argument and, as ever, feel free to comment your own opinion on this controversial issue and ask any questions you may or may not have. I will do my best to answer them all.

Until next time,

Stephanie

The Daily Show: The Broads must be Crazy

Feminist Youtube Takeover and Dealing with the Term "Feminism"

Recently there has been a huge incline of feminism as a topic of debate across Youtube. A lot of people arguing that the movement is outdated and others arguing that it is the ignorance of the opposed which is preventing any real change. 

One of the videos that stuck out for me was Laci Green's video "WHY I'M A... FEMINIST *gasp*". It provoked a lot of debate within the comment section over what it meant to be a feminist and whether the individual considered themselves to be one. 

In her video Laci describes to her viewers why she would consider herself a feminist. She kicks off the video with an over-exaggerated example of the stigma attached to calling oneself a feminist, but she soon crushes any opposition by defining feminism as "A social movement for gender and sex equality" or "A personal commitment to understanding and achieving gender equality in everyday life" whilst the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." This, in itself, created a lot of controversy in the comments as quite a few people picked up on the fact that Laci didn't mention that it was often spoken out from a female's point of view.

Personally, I would argue that the feminist movement has to come from a woman's point of view as the women were, and still are, the more oppressed of the two genders. When the Suffragists and the Suffragettes started their campaigns to allow women to vote they didn't take into account that the men might have a problem with their own equality because they didn't have any. Or if they did then they certainly didn't have them to the extent that women did. It is still shocking to me that less than one hundred years ago women were not allowed to vote at all. That meant the men that were oppressing them could choose to pick the Prime Ministers that would help them increase their male privilege rather than help to make the country, the world even, a more equal place for the genders to live side-by-side.

Upon scrolling through the comments I found one individual, that will remain anonymous, who put forward an interesting argument to me outlining the reasons that  the term "feminism" is outdated.

They write:

"I'm saying that feminsim as a movement is no longer equipped to handle these issues. There are most certainly gender issues that need to be addressed. But the direction that the feminist movement comes at these is no longer effective. Before, the movements main objective was putting in legal measures to help women in society obtain equal footing. At the time there were very serious issues that needed to be handled, now that majority of these issues are dealt with, the movement has moved on to less important (by comparison) issues. However this movement is now old enough to have ideology, an image. It draws into it certain demand for action. All successful movements have this. However since the major issues have been handled, this intensity the movement brings has a strong counter-productive effect. You can see the results of this in the nay sayers of the movement (as in direct opposition to the movement) whose complaints are mostly along the line of "your over reacting". In part there is truth this, because the rhetoric gives that impression. This is what I mean by 'feminism' is degenerating. Because now the movement must reform itself to adapt. This of course causes the age old "hardliners vs new ideas" problem in major organizations. And the more ideological the an organization is, the more difficult that become. Feminism is directly caught in this trap and is slowly eating itself alive."

I thought this argument was very well delivered and gave me a lot to think about, but in the end I decided to disagree with what they were saying in the sense that I think even by changing the name the morals and attitudes would have to remain the same. This means that those who oppose now are still likely to oppose in the future. Another problem with changing the name from "Feminism" to something that sounds more equal is that it puts a kink in the entire argument that women are the more oppressed gender.

I believe that the movement's name reflects what it is fighting for and, although there are sub-groups which promote and conform to the stigma, the overall movement is still fighting to close the wage gap which, unfortunately, still exists. This and many more arguments such as where a lot of people stand on rape culture or being allowed to choose the way you dress and act (I'll save that for another post) all contribute to the very obvious fact, women are still under the upper hand.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to my arguments, feel free to comment your own opinion on this controversial issue and ask any questions you may or may not have. I will do my best to answer them all.

Until next time,

Stephanie

Laci Green's video