Sociology Sundays: Marxism and Toy Story

Let it be known that I am a huge fan of Pixar, in fact, as I write this I am sitting in some Finding Nemo PJs and I have to say, the Toy Story trilogy is very much my favourite group of movies that exist, but there are some very interesting moments in it that I think Karl Marx might have a problem with. And being the loser that I am I will be combining two things I love, Marxism and Toy Story and telling you what Marx might say about this childhood classic.


The first thing we need to do is work out how the class system works within Andy's room. Whilst Andy and humans in general would be the obvious choice for ruling class it's also interesting to look at the dynamic between the toys so I will be splitting this into two sections. The Toys and The Humans.

THE TOYS

Firstly we should look at the main character, Woody, Woody is in a position of power, he runs Andy's room, and it all seems to be going well. From what we can tell, Woody runs the room because he is Andy's favourite. This is almost like the "god given right" Kings and Queens were bestowed in order to run a country. At first glance we would assume Marx would label this a bad thing, like he does with god given rights etc. however, I don't believe that it is as simple as that.

Whilst it is entirely possible to consider Woody a "Kingly" figure and Andy the "god-like" figure, the fact that it is okay for the rest of the toys, who all seem equal in their ranking after Woody, it could be looked at as a near-communist society with one person in power. This is, obviously, something Karl Marx would be close to liking.

If we also take into consideration that Buzz finds his way to the top very quickly and all the other toys migrate to like him we could argue that it is the choice of the "lower class" and, therefore, it is more of a chosen leader, rather than assigned. Woody is no more likely to be in charge than, say, Mr Potato Head, or Hamm, it is all to do with how the other toys perceive Woody.

Woody has also, it is assumed, been around longer than the other toys, which makes him more experienced, now whilst I am not 100% sure on Marx's opinion of electing the smartest person to lead a group, I know that Gramsci, is definitely all for "counter-hegemonic blocs" which means a group of in the know "working class" people using their smarts to overrule the oppressive 1%.

However, the only time where is it 100% clear who the oppressive toy is, is in the third movie with Lotso. He is a dictator with a group that do all the work for him in oppressing all the toys who step out of line, using devices such as CCTV, Prison and even torture (the sandbox). This is, personally, one of the best aspects of Toy Story 3 and, of course we get the brilliant line from "Marxist Barbie"...

THE HUMANS

As I mentioned before, within Andy's Room the Toys appear to be happy to be ruled over by Andy, he is like a God to them, someone they look up to and rely on, even after he has thrown out a lot of the toys. Heck Woody loses the his love interest, Bo Peep all because Andy grew too old for her, but Woody looks up to Andy in a way that this doesn't deter him at all. This is something Marx hated. He hated religion, he called it "the opium of the people" because it was and is something that some people blindly follow even if they don't agree with everything they are doing. It is something, according to Marx, that wealthy people created to keep the poor subdued. Lenin called it "spiritual gin" and this seems to be the case for Woody and his friends. They all follow Andy or Bonnie (presumably) no matter what. Heck, Jessie was cast aside by Emily and even she eventually gave into another human.

What Woody does with Sid is a perfect example of a revolution from the "underclass" the toys all group together to prevent another injustice being done aka the killing of one of their kind. This, to me, is amazing, it is exactly what Marx wants from all the working class people in the world and it is exactly what I want to see in my favourite movie series of all time. 

Thanks Pixar for introducing adult themes into kids movies, they have influenced me so much in my interest in politics and other issues like pollution, bravery, and feminism. (See Wall.E, Monsters Inc, and Brave)

So yeah, there are a few thoughts I had about Toy Story, this was fun for me, I basically got to combine two of my favourite things.

I haven't decided on a topic for next week so let me know what you would like to see and I will give it a go.

Until next time,

Stephanie

UK Election Results 2k15

WARNING: This post contains A LOT of brackets and I mean A LOT!

Right, so I know I have a few readers who are not from the UK so this might not be as easy to understand for you so just this once you get the excuse to not read this... BUT if you do want to know about the problems facing Britain right now then stay tuned because it is about to get ugly up in here.

In the UK we have two major parties: Conservatives and Labour. In their most basic forms Conservatives (The Tories) are a party for the wealthy and Labour are a party "for the people". During the 2015 elections David Cameron was the leader for the Conservatives (And he still is) and Ed Miliband was the leader for Labour (Miliband has since stepped down). Other parties involved were the SNP (Scottish National Party: Leader Nicola Sturgeon) who can't actually be in charge of UK politics because of their "national" status. UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party aka one policy party to be strict on immigration aka "the Racists") The Greens (Probably the one I identify the most with they are the most liberal, but again on the surface appear to be one policy in that they are very much pro-environment) Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) Let's be honest they weren't as important this year. And then some other Independent ones and some Welsh and some Irish ones... ceebs go into it.

Now you know the basics I will launch into my many rants which I will title so you don't have to read the ones you aren't interested in.

VOTING SYSTEM

In the UK we have a system called "First Past the Post". Under this system we vote for who we want to represent our area (constituency) and whoever gets that majority becomes a seat for their party in the House of Commons. E.g. in my constituency (Eastbourne) we have had Stephen Lloyd as our MP (Member of Parliament) for the past five years, this year Conservatives won by just over 700 and so Caroline Ansell is now our MP. Her MP-hood becomes 1 seat for the Conservative Party. The party with the majority of seats (326 as there are 650 constituencies in the UK) wins the election. SIMPLE! But, alas, this is an unfair way of going about it.

Below is a chart showing you how many people voted for which parties in the UK:

This is how many seats these parties won... SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!

This is how many seats would be given under PR (Proportional Representation) this seems a bit more fair... no?:

I personally don't think PR works all that well. It is more difficult to get a majority vote especially when it comes to making decisions after a "winner" is declared (In this case it would still be Conservatives, but I'll save that rant for later) HOWEVER, I still think it is closer to the sort of politics I want to see than that of FPTP as it gives a chance to parties like the Greens to have their say in what happens to our country. They get the chance to make a difference!

And I'll just sit here and imagine your "But what if UKIP" arguments. Yes, FPTP mostly kept UKIP out of Parliament this year, but THIS ISN'T DEMOCRACY!!! UKIP are awful, I disagree with everything they stand for, but they got the votes and their voters deserve the right to have their voices heard! It's simple democracy. (Plus they might be able to finally see how bad the party actually is)

I hope this helps you to see how flawed our current system is.

CONSERVATIVES vs LABOUR 

A hashtag that has been trending, and I have shared and partaken in this hashtag, is the #ToriesOutNow tag. This is trending in light of demonstrations and petitions against another 5 years of the buttcrack of parliament that is the Conservative Party. And I know I've been discreet, but yes, I do not like the Tories. I feel their policies are very much in favour of the 1% and the fact they want to privatise and sell our NHS is not good (I happen to like the NHS despite it's problems.) But... If I was to try and be as unbiased as possible I would have to disagree with the hashtag. Whilst I do not like the Tories, either way you look at it they got the majority vote. Even through the more favourable PR.
In this section I want to discuss how they won over that majority.

Playground Politics.

They basically made a mockery out of Ed Miliband by posting front page news with full page blown up pictures of him eating a sandwich in an, admittedly, poor way. They slated every move he made! As well as this they used the SNP and possible maybe coalition with Labour as a fear tactic and, because the Tories own about 70% of UK newspapers, it worked. They successfully bullied the people of Britain into voting for them.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

The most important thing we can do over the next few weeks is keep talking about it! Keep protesting this system that allows room for oppression and bullying and immature politics. In the long term, if this doesn't work out, the best idea I can fathom for those who aren't planning on leaving the UK and starting an underground DJ group in Berlin (Like me and my friends Shannon, Rachael and Eric are planning on doing... We'll be called Holy Trinity feat. Steph incase you were wondering) the best idea I can think of, when all hope is lost and protesting is no longer happening, is to just sit tight, hope we as a country can get through this and, once it is over, in 5 years time, we can regroup and try to start something new.


I hope.


As always, comment below and let me know what you think and ask me any questions, stay open minded.

Steph

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

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

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