We need Feminism because...

Feminism - "to define, establish and defend equal political, economic, cultural and social rights for women."

   Firstly, feminism is not a radical, lesbian, man hating movement. It's primary purpose is not to make women the dominant, powerful sex. Feminism is about making genders equal, in all aspects of our society.
   For many, they see feminism as "having had it's day" when the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 meant that women over the age of 21 could vote. However that is far from the case. There are so many spheres within our society where women are treated as second class citizens and our thoughts and feelings are disregarded on the basis that we are not men. It is because of this that we still need feminism as a movement to aid us in achieving the equality we, and so many women before us, have fought for.

Politically:
    Women are completely underrepresented within Politics. With over half of our population in the United Kingdom being women, you would think that within parliament we would be fairly portrayed. Yet, less than 25% of parliamentry seats belong to women (thats 147 of 650), only 32% of councillors and 12.3% of council leaders are women, which is in fact a reduction since 2004. Sadly, the face of British politics is overwhelmingly male, and this creates an image to young minds that unless you are an old, white man then a career in politics is highly unlikely.
    The sexism and sexual harassment that in recent years has become a highlighted issue for Westminster, also seems to have trickled down into our local councils. Such as in Llanelli were women were excluded from a dinner for fears they would be offended by 'blue humour'...because obviously women do not have a sense of humour and the slightest joke may just make us combust.
    It doesn't seem to end there. As reported by the Guardian, a child born today (August 2014) will be drawing her pension before she is equally represented in parliament - or has an equal chance to be elected to it.
Since 1918,  92% of MPs have been male. Only 369 women have been elected to parliament since 1918 and it wasn't until 1979 that we saw our first lady PM.

Economically:
    It is not a secret that economically, women are worse off. In full time employment, women earn 10% less than men, and in part-time employment the gap jumps to a huge 34.5%, and it is estimated that 70% of people in national minimum wage jobs are women.
    Pregnancy does not help this. Up to 30,000 women are sacked each year just for being pregnant, as well as 440,000 women missing out on pay rises or promotions as a direct result of their pregnancy.
    However, if we were to utilise women and the skill they posses, it is estimated that the UK would gain 23 billion pounds a year (2% of GDP)... so why aren't we better harnessing womens skills?


     Sadly, feminism isn't just about equal pay and political representation. There are darker issues, with deeper consequences that also need addressing - such as FGM and the ever growing rape culture that we are seeing amongst our youth.
    Every year in the UK, 20,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk of Female Genital Mutilation. This is the procedure that restricts pleasurable sex for women by mutilating the female genital organs. FGM has absolutely NO medical benefits although has plenty of side effects, including the massive mental trauma of being wide awake during the course of the procedure. It highlights the deep rooted inequality and extreme discrimination against women, as well as being a violation of fundamental human rights.

    We have also witnessed in recent years a huge increase in what is known as "Rape Culture" and many peoples absolute denial for it being a real problem, with real consequences. Rape culture is the social conditioning that tolerates and accepts sexual violence in all capacities. It is situations where sexual assault, rape and general violence are ignored, trivialised, normalised and made into jokes. Rape culture is completely counterproductive to eliminating sexual violence.
    In recent news we saw the story of Ched Evans, professional footballer, jailed for two and a half years for what he said was 'consensual sex'. On his release from jail, he was allowed to train with Sheffield United, causing immediate backlash from the public.
    For me, what I think is so disgusting is that his position as a footballer and the things that come along with that title, are all privileges not God given rights based on talent. So personally, when you forcibly have sex with a woman against her will, these privileges should be removed indefinitely. Only in a crazy world would you let a convicted rapist back into a position where his attitude, actions, behaviour and status of a role model can influence your children.
   We also see women consistently asked questions such as; what they were wearing at the time of their assault, asking if they provoked the attack and saying that they probably deserved it.  The police will question the victims choices rather than the rapists. We live in a society that blames women for their own attacks and then questions why only 40% of rapes are reported.

We NEED feminism:

• because cat-calling is still a thing. And still supposedly a compliment
• because we teach women to protect themselves, rather than to teach everyone to respect someones choice to say no to sexual advances
• because we are more comfortable seeing page 3, than a Mother breastfeeding her child
• because more than 120 countries do not have laws against marital rape, and still allow child brides
• because when women are assaulted and raped, they feel ashamed
• because we tell boys they should respect girls because of their sisters and mothers, not because girls are also human beings 
• because we still have to explain why we need feminism...

This is not about women becoming stronger, better and more powerful than men. This is not about shaming men, or shaming women who do not believe in the need for feminism. This is about making people realise that gender inequality is a real thing, and not just a bunch of "over-hyped feminists looking for something to moan about".

Feminism should be women and men standing up for everyone to be treated like humans.

Gender Roles

Sex - biological differences between men and women 

Gender - cultural expectations attached to being feminine or masculine

From a young age, our gender roles are set out and reaffirmed to us. Men are the breadwinners, powerful, strong and confident. Women are domestically useful and submissive to their men. Any wavering outside of these roles will have a man dubbed 'immasculine' and a woman 'a tom boy'. 

Boys from a young age are groomed subconsciously into a certain role. They're given science kits, footballs and tool kits and told they can be anything they wish to be. When they fall and cry they're told 'not to cry like a girl' as a tool to get them to jump up and brush themselves off. At the same time they see girls playing with dolls, prams and kitchen sets (obviously women belong in the kitchen, regardless of their age). As soon as they hit double figures, most of them are exposed to the world of porn. This is especially harmful. Porn does nothing but show women in a submissive role & is viewed as a documentary or real life rather than something that has been put together for entertainment purposes. The women in porn rarely look how 'real' women do (i.e. Botox, boob jobs, butt implants) and it simply does not portray sex in a real light. Men believe they need to act how the men do in porn, giving them unachievable expectations of themselves as well as their sexual partner.

Girls much in the same way are groomed to a role. Given dolls, kitchen sets and Disney princess dresses. From a young age, they take the mothering roll. The Disney films teach them that one day a man will come along and rescue them, giving them everything they've ever wanted or needed. 

    

The dolls and films show us we must be small, with long blonde hair and perky boobs to be attractive and porn/page 3 confirms this for us. We rarely see ethnic minorities used for these roles in films or for the toys we give our children. As we turn into our teenage selfs, bullies at school are quick to remind us if we are too big or in fact too small (people sometimes forget that girls who struggle to gain weight are also bullied for being 'too skeletal') and we soon become our own biggest critics. 

Now don't get me wrong, a majority of boys at age 5 or 6 will want to play football, and will want to be scientists or politicians. This is perfectly fine. However, what is wrong is to look at a young boy playing 'daddy' with a pram and doll and see this as strange. What is wrong is to look at a girl playing football or climbing a tree and dub her a 'tom boy' rather than a girl who likes to play football, or climb trees. 

It's exactly these gender roles that have told me time and time again that politics is not the right career for me. I would need to be more manly. More aggressive, and less caring. These traits would put me on the right footing (although, I could probably be more manly than a majority of the men in government, and still need a penis to be taken seriously).

       

These are your traditional gender roles - the ones on the right, held by all men (OBVIOUSLY, they cannot be any of the feminine traits) are what makes them better for politics (naturally). Even David Cameron has made sexist jibes, telling Angela Eagle during PMQs to 'calm down dear'. But obviously this is just a joke and women should lighten up (even though only 4 of the 22 cabinet ministers are women, and we have been disproportionality hit by cuts. Not to mention there are only 147 women in 650 seats in parliament). And this is just one example of a job where women are not seen as adequate.

Now I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've been asked  'You really do politics?' Or 'What do you study? Hair and make-up?' (assumably because I brush my hair and wear make up? Or maybe because I have tattoos and piercings? I don't know). I can't lie, I take great pride in smugly turning and saying 'actually no, I study politics' and watching their faces drop in shame of their assumptions. Is it simply because I am a woman and I shouldn't intellectually outsmart a man? We rarely see women in power and politics is mainly a male dominated world, which I accept. Though that doesn't mean I can't and won't be as successful as my male counterparts and I refuse to be turnt away on the basis of my sex. 

In recent years the gender roles we are expected to conform to have become more distinct. It is a well known fact that women do more housework and take on more of the child care needs than males. It's also a fact that women are paid less, and less likely to reach high positions in businesses (CEO, director). It is just as well known that girls do better than boys in school and in some parts of the UK young men are more likely to be unemployed than girls. Women who do well in business and sacrafice having a married life or children (until they reach where they want to be) are pitied and men who do the same are seen as smart and 'setting up a future'. 

So when some argue that feminism is redundant - this obviously is not the case. Though we also need to remember the boys we so often forget about. Boys are affected just as much as girls. They are shown images, and are expected to look and act a certain way in exactly the same way girls are, or face criticism. We often don't take boys as seriously, I suppose because we feel they are not as affected as we are. However unless these gender roles are dropped (BOYS stop telling me to get back in the kitchen, that is NOT my place. GIRLS stop waiting to become a WAG and go and earn your own money) we will always live in a society that criticises women for not acting as mothers and men for not being dominant and powerful. 

Isn't it weird we live in a society that encourages you to be different, but scorns you when you are?

To Die or Not To Die - Euthanasia

Euthanasia - the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering.

Truly a topic that in a strange way - has always interested me. The first time I was really exposed to the harsh, cold reality of euthanasia was during an A Level law class, in which we were required to look at it under the umbrella of morality. 

Really, there are two clear, black and white sides to this argument. Those for, and those against - although the reasons behind a persons sidings are not always as clear cut. There are harrowing cases of paralysis, or the aftermath of strokes and comas where it just seems barbarically cruel to allow someone to continue with life, when they have already mentally given up the fight and no longer want to live, but cannot physically end the suffering themselves. On the other hand, we have religion. God gives life, only god can take life away. This being one of the main reasons that the UK has so far said no to allowing euthanasia. There is also the argument that by accepting euthanasia we are accepting that some lives (those of the sick, or disabled) are less worthy than others. 

However what are the pros and cons of euthanasia? Should we allow those who want to, to end their lives and their suffering? Or would there never be enough regulation to make this safe, ending in a slippery slope towards non-voluntary euthanasia? 

Dignitas 

A Swiss group, set up with the specific intentions to allow people to go and take their lives, in a calm, peaceful and pain free manner. Many from the UK have flown out to use the services provided by Dignitas, as we currently do not offer them here. Some people though fear that if loved ones are to accompany them, on their return to the UK they will be prosecuted as assisted suicide is illegal. Thus far, no-one ever has. 

Before really looking into it, for some reason I was under the impression that after a few email exchanges, or maybe a phone call or two, that really, that would be it. I would be set up to head over to Switzerland and would be able to end my life (yes, I now realise how stupid that does in fact seem). I couldn't be more wrong. There are a series of things any perspective user must do in order to even be considered by Dignitas. 

1) You must be a member. Costing around £210.

2) You must be of sound judgement and of at least minimal movement (in order to self administer the drugs) 

3) Situation wise you must be either a) terminally ill b) of incapacitating and unendurable disability c) in unbearable and uncontrollable pain 

4) You're then required to write a letter to the company. In this letter you must explain your situation, the pain that you are in and how it affects you. You must then create a biographical sketch explaining your relationship with your next of kin. Including whether or not they support your decision. You must also include a current medical report, together with 3 to 4 old ones. 

Only after carrying out these steps will you even be considered for the use of Dignitas' clinic. 

In order to end your life, you're firstly given an anti sickness drug. You are then expected to self administer (it is usually a drink if you can swallow, if not through your feeding tube) the lethal dose of NaP. This drug within 2 to 5 minutes will send you to sleep, and then into a deep coma. Soon after your respiratory centre becomes paralysed, leading to death. All pain-free. So surely this is the perfect solution for anyone who truly wants to end their life? 

Sadly, that is not always the case. As before mentioned, many from the UK fear prosecution, which holds them back from travelling to Dignitas. Some, cannot self administer, meaning that Dignitas cannot help them. Many of you would have heard the case of Tony Nicklinson. 

A husband and a father. An active man until a stroke in 2005 left him paralysed from the neck down and unable to speak. 

He went to court, and pleaded that a doctor should be allowed to help him die. The answer was no. Tony Nicklinson was therefore forced to carry out a sentence of life, although having done nothing wrong. 

So, put yourself in this situation for a moment. You're a young, healthy human being. You're married, you have kids. One day, out of the blue, your life changes in every single way. You can no longer talk, ask for what you need, or what you want. On top of that you can't walk - in fact you cannot actually move, so you can't do anything for yourself. Your dignity is stripped from you, as is your independence and you have to depend on your spouse, kids and careers to do everything for you. Although, 6 months ago you could do every day things and not think twice about it. 

So would you want to live? Morality is a subjective concept, but is it moral on any level to make someone live when their only wish is to die? Sadly in this case, Mr Nicklinson was left with one choice, he refused to eat, and eventually in what I can only imagine would have been indescribable pain, passed away.

'We wouldn't keep an animal who is in pain, who is losing quality of life, of dying alive. So why do we put our fellow humans through this disgusting treatment?' 

I mean, regardless of my own feelings, I can see why judges and parliament are hesitant to change the UK laws. Besides from a religious backlash that would be a result of any changes to law, could we really regulate this in a way that will help and not hinder. It could go one of two ways if the law was ever changed, over or under regulation, both of which would be catastrophic. If we over regulate, there is no real point in changing the law. The amount of people who would benefit would be minimal and we would still be leaving many in a bad situation - and with no one ever currently being prosecuted for accompanying someone to dignitas you may as well take the risk. 

With regards to religion and the part it plays in the legalisation of euthanasia, it is definitely a difficult one. The argument goes that God gave us free will, however, by taking your own, or aiding someone else to take their life is denying God his rights. His right is over our lives, how it ends and more importantly WHEN it ends. 

There is also an argument that once you allow euthenasia you then start the slippery slope towards involuntary euthenasia (I.e. Doctors not getting the necessary permission but killing the patient anyway). For reasons including resources - we already lack massively in things such as beds at local hospitals. Terminally ill patients could be persuaded into euthenasia by doctors as a way to save money and free up the resources being used. A 1998 study found that doctors who are cost-conscious and 'practice resource-conserving medicine' are significantly more likely to write a lethal prescription for terminally-ill patients [Arch. Intern. Med., 5/11/98, p. 974]. 

Personally, I feel this is such a hard subject to discuss, so many conflicting views and opinions make it one that most would probably avoid. Although it may sound cruel, or sadistic to some, I am all for euthanasia. I agree with the whole "we wouldn't put an animal through it, so why do we put humans through it" argument. Also for me, I feel like this allows us some dignity in dying. If I was ever put into a situation where I knew my illness would get progressively worse, leaving me bed bound and in incredible amounts of pain and suffering I would like to think I would put myself out of my own misery - rather than allow what could be a long and painful wait. I agree that this would take heavy regulation, but it is such a necessary law to now allow. With the work of people such as Debbie Purdy, and the family of Tony Nicklinson and charities such as 'Dignity in Dying' I hope it won't be long until the choice is made available to us. 

Some People are Gay - GET OVER IT

I believe in 'the one'. I believe love conquers all and there is nothing more beautiful than seeing a 70 year old couple wondering down the street holding hands. I believe in soul mates - one person, specifically designed for you - perfect in your eyes, in every way (minus the snoring). Notice how I said person. I do not believe that this one person, specifically made for you has to be the opposite gender to yourself. Love is love, whatever way, shape, size, gender or colour it comes in.

So, what is homosexuality? Let that word sink in for a moment. What does it mean to you? What  images do you conjure from the words gay, lesbian or transgender? Do these images come with a stereotype, or a derogatory word - that once or twice in your life you may have used against someone, different to you? More importantly - why do we see these people as different? Is it to do with the way we've been brought up - parents who were born in an age where the status quo is not to be challenged. You get married, you have kids, an estate car - a dog, if that's what you fancy. You most definitely do not come out as 'gay'. OR does it come down to religious values? Religions on the whole - although becoming more tolerant, scorn homosexuality and have since the dawn of time. In most cases, being brought up around these religious values will inevitably leave you looking at homosexuality in a certain way. 

Gay.

Lesbian.

Transgender

When the topic of homosexuality arises, especially between teenagers (normally males, sorry boys) you generally hear 'Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'. To be sexually attracted to the same gender is just not right (unless you're watching lesbian porn, then that is okay). It's a lifestyle choice, a rebellion against strict parents, teachers, priests and a scream for attention to break from the majority.

Be honest. You've met a gay person on a night out, in the work place, in school. You've been speaking and you finally pluck up the courage to ask 'So...when did you know when you were gay?' in which the reply should be 'When did you realise you were straight?' (Here I'd like to give thanks to my anonymous source for raising this as the best response to that question I have ever heard). There are many arguments and views on this but mine is - we are born this way. We are genetically coded to be sexually attracted to whoever or whatever we are sexually attracted to. As a straight woman, I didn't wake up one day, hop out of bed, look in the mirror and think to myself 'I am attracted to men!' and carry on about my day. In the same way I am sure a lesbian woman, or a gay man wouldn't jump out of bed and decide that they were going to 'break the mould' and 'rebel' and just, as if by magic, be sexually attracted to someone of the same gender.

If you're reading this through a link I've shared on Facebook or Twitter you will regularly see things I share or post, clearly showing I am what you would call 'pro-gay'. In fact I am not 'pro-gay' I am simply PRO LOVE.

For me, I believe religion is somewhat accountable for the prejudice we still see in today's society. Christians for example have openly and happily condemned acts of homosexuality for years,  and in America some religious companies even offering 'cures for the illness', which have included electric shock therapy, inducing nausea whilst being exposed to homoerotic material, praying, exorcism, trips to brothels for sex with women and even hypnosis. I don't know about anyone else, but this to me is just ludicrous. On what planet are we allowing these organisations to put people through such disgusting, harmful and degrading treatments in the 'hope' that they will be cured of their 'illness'. 

Even in modern day we see disgusting acts of violence towards LGBT persons. Nigeria for example does not allow or recognise LGBT rights, and there is no legal protection against the discrimination of these people. A population of 170 million, split between a Muslim north and a largely Christian south. The maximum punishment for same-sex sexual activity in one of the 12 Shari'a Law north states is death upon stoning. In the south, 14 years imprisonment. Both absolutely ridiculous - but stoning someone to death for being themselves is just totally barbaric to me. 

Is it to do with up-bringing? In the last century we have seen the fight for acceptance come on in leaps and bounds. However as little as 50 years ago, it was still seen as 'perverted' for same-sex sexual activity, or even relationships. Business was kept behind closed doors and this was definitely not news you would want your neighbours catching wind of. Has this mentality trickled down through the generations? Is it still polluting some young minds - causing the spread of hate rather than love and choice? 

I don't know - but I don't believe we as humans, should be defined by what we are or what our sexual preference is. I don't know what my sexual preference has to do with anyone other than me. I don't know who that affects, other than me, or why any one else should be as interested in me, as me! So the next time you see a same sex couple, a gay pride event, or a trasgender man, or woman - don't look down your nose. Just smile. 

Battle of the Sexes

The treatment of women in the modern world for my first blog post may be a little heavy - but when have I ever been one to hold back on how I feel?

Misogyny - the hatred or dislike of women or girls. 

Blurred Lines: The New Battle of the Sexes - a recent documentary if you like aired on BBC 2 questioning if our sexually explicit culture is opening the doors for age old hostilities towards women. 
The real question is whether we have a new, and altogether frightening (for me, at least) acceptance of jokes and even acts against women, or whether we have crossed the line into misogyny.

My experiences...

Myself, at only 19 years old have already seen first hand what I would define as misogynistic behaviour, towards me personally and women in general. 
I study politics. Prior to going to university I had never studied politics (either at A level or in high school) - so in honesty had no real clue of what I was getting myself in to. Maybe just through ignorance on my behalf, I never realised what a male dominated world politics is - even at a university level. I could count on my hands the number of females in my lectures. We are clearly outnumbered by our male counterparts. For me, I personally do not mind this (and still do not) and for the first few weeks, maybe even months it never really mattered. This was until I began to notice comments made by males in the class, jokes that were tossed around and a general disregard for anything said by females. Now please don't take me wrong and let me lead you to believe that this comes from every male. In fact it's a handful who make these comments and jokes, however I have noticed these jokes have opened a doorway, in which others in the class feel it is okay to laugh, and 'banter' back. 

Regardless of my own experiences - there are many examples in which we find it okay to make fun out of women.

Technology...

Growing up in such a technologically advanced world makes it all to easy for young people to access porn, sexually explicit images and video games in which they are learning  what they think - and what is portrayed to them - as the correct way to treat women. All you need to do is type 'Porn' into any search engine and instantly you have thousands of videos, images and even stories portraying females (mostly) at the mercy of men. The words 'teen', 'rape' and 'rough' instantly pop up alongside the videos and the content is usually even more shocking. 
We more and more have a culture where rape is down played, and some even say 'women ask for it' either by the way they dress or their actions. 

A shocking case - that I had never come across, from what I can only imagine to be lack of reporting - and uncovered to me by the BBC 2 programme took place in Steubenville, a small town in Ohio. A drunken high school girl was publicly and repeatedly raped at a party, with much of it being documented and placed on social networking sites. The two boys, the main perpetrators, 16 at the time, were found guilty of rape of a minor - with the judge commenting that it was some what the young girls fault (due to her being intoxicated).

This obviously is not the first, or the last we will see of this sort of behaviour amongst young people. I personally feel as the cyber world grows - incidents such as the one in Steubenville will only grow with it and if possible, they will become more sinister unless the issue of misogyny is dealt with head on. 

Pop Culture...

It is not only porn that is creating this portrayal. Since the early 90's to current day, music and magazines have increasingly been testing the barriers of what is and what isn't acceptable. 
Most recently - and maybe most shockingly was Robin Thicke's hit 'Blurred Lines' an altogether sexually explicit song, and that is not just the lyrics.
The accompanying video shows three scantily clad models prancing about, looking like meat to the three male singers who appear on the song. 

However this was only the PG13 version of the video, made suitable for TV viewing. By simply typing in the name of the song - the real video emerges. Three women topless, with nothing but nude thongs and heels to cover what dignity they had left.

Not only are we saying to young males that it is okay for this sort of behaviour, we are also doing the same to young women. The message we send that is by stripping off and showing your body (which must be a perfectly toned size 0, but that is another topic for another day) you can achieve fame, for one, and the attention of men (although, this is not the attention I personally would like to receive, as it would certainly not be for your intelligence or wit). 

What is really going on here?

After the programme I really had to ask myself, is it just the fault of men 'objectifying' us, or are we ourselves, as women adding to our own mistreatment? Is it due to pop culture - women in the limelight acting a certain way (erotic music videos and sex tapes), is it because as women when we hear these jokes and comments, we just laugh along and refuse to stand up for ourselves. Or is it because a handful of women go to clubs and pubs and 'misbehave' creating an image for all women, held by all men, thinking they can have their way with any woman as and when they please. 

Don't get me wrong, there are misogynistic men who will not agree, like or applaud anything a woman does, simply for the fact that she is a woman, or God forbid a feminist. However, their are also women out there, parading themselves in a way that they objectify themselves and hand whatever it is they are offering to men on a silver platter - and in all honesty, why should men turn that down?

In my own opinion, I think as women, we need to stop feeling sorry for ourselves and blaming everything on men. I agree the battle is on going. Pop culture, technology and the changing attitudes of some men have hindered our quest for total equality and in some cases, yes it will hinder it for years if we continue to allow porn to be so easily accessible and have no real guidelines on what is, and what isn't acceptable for a pop music video (sorry Robin, it's a no from me). I also think there's a massive need to educate young people, male and female, on the dangers of what the internet and games can allow us to think is okay.
Kids need to be told that porn isn't real (if you slap your wife, or girlfriend, have sex (consent or no consent) with a minor or 'rape' someone, there's a strong possibility you'll go to jail... for a long time) and to make sure parents keep children (who are, funnily enough, impressionable) away from consoles and games that they are not old enough to play. Especially the ones in which you can have sex with a prostitute and then kill her to get your money back...?!?!

Small steps can create big changes, although obviously more will need to be done to combat the problem altogether. By practising what we preach we can influence a generation - and hope that more equality will be a by-product of that.