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
Tuesday 29 April 2014
Monday 28 April 2014
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
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
Sunday 27 April 2014
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:
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
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
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
Saturday 26 April 2014
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)