Dressing like a Feminist and Acting like one are two Different Things

In recent months, what many thought impossible has happened: feminism has been well and truly catapulted into the mainstream. Though the reasons for this sudden surge in mass appeal are numerous, much credit must go to the appointment of Emma Watson as a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. The appointment paved the way for ‘that speech’ and the launch of the HeForShe campaign, which did much to bring gender equality issues into the public consciousness.  

Long before the HeForShe campaign became a widely discussed phenomenon, occasionally social media would cough up a photo depicting a straight-faced youth holding a placard that said “this is why I need feminism”, or a smiling celeb proudly wearing a t-shirt declaring “this is what a feminist looks like.” Last week Elle Magazine decided to commandeer the latter example when putting a piece together picturing famous men looking their most earnest. The men photographed included A-listers such as Benedict Cumberbatch and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. However, three of the men approached were the three Westminster Leaders: David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband. While Clegg and Miliband gladly snapped up the chance for a photo opportunity, the Prime Minister declined and immediately faced a media backlash as a result.

Now far be it from me to suggest that Benedict Cumberbatch wouldn't have jumped right under that horse with Emily Davidson given the chance, but we have a slightly better idea about the politics of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband. Cameron heads a cabinet comprising of only 22% women, and with the gender pay gap increasing and huge financial pressure on domestic violence refuge centres under his government, what is clear is – Dave is not a feminist. However, on this occasion at least, he is not a hypocrite. Although Nick Clegg deserves credit for his recent stance on paternity leave, on what level can we truly consider him a feminist? Let’s not forget, he is the Deputy Prime Minister of the same regime as Cameron. But what of Miliband? He does at least have more women in his shadow cabinet, but what other evidence have we really seen of his feminist leanings?

Maybe I’m being cynical, and we should applaud Clegg and Miliband for their clothing based commitment to feminism. Maybe it was a genuine statement about their belief in gender equality. Ultimately though, perhaps the best way for Clegg and Miliband to show us what a feminist looks like, is not by posing for fashion magazines, but by taking feminism from a popular movement to the forefront of Westminster politics. 

Gun Culture in the USA: A Perspective From Across the Pond

This year, the USA has had to endure two horrifying mass shootings in a time period of less than a month and a half. On July 20th a citizen walked into a cinema in Aurora Colorado and shot 70 people, killing 12 of them; with a 12 gauge shotgun, two semi-automatic rifles, one handgun and thousands of rounds of ammunition, all of which was purchased legally. On August 5th the news reached our screens of a shooting at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, in which six people lost their lives to a man wielding another legally acquired weapon. Although the motives for these dreadful crimes were clearly not linked, the latter being an act of "domestic terrorism" from a white supremacist and the former appearing to be motivated by little and are but the result of the actions of a mentally unstable man. They are however, related in the sense that they are part of a much wider social problem in America; a destructive gun culture that polarises opinion across the country.

Media coverage of each attack differed greatly. you'd be forgiven for thinking that the Aurora shootings received far more coverage because it really did seem that way. The events of July 20th saw weeks of media attention that focused on all aspects of the story; from the aspect of human tragedy to the technical aspects of police response, perhaps the relative lack of coverage of the events in Wisconsin can be best explained by the one aspect of the Aurora shootings the media focused on too much: the killer himself. When events like these occur, when an individual or a small number of people commit multiple murders, the media is explicitly advised to avoid focusing on the identity of the killer(s) or dramatising the event with the sound of police sirens or even giving the event too much coverage, as when this happens a similar event is likely to occur in the weeks or months that follow. This is because it becomes evident to prospective killers the ease at which they can become infamous and/or give their beliefs or cause recognition. However, a cynic may argue that the reason for the relative lack of coverage is that western media saw the shootings in Wisconsin as an issue for the Sikh community and therefor not as news worthy as the deaths of a predominantly white cinema going group, but as I said that's just a cynics view. However it is not fair at all to say that this was the reaction of the entire American population, in New York alone hundreds took to the streets in a candlelight visual promoting religious tolerance and tighter gun control, and the President stressed how the Sikh population were an important part of the "broader American family."

What can be said of these events effect on the rest of American society? Well statistics say that guns sales surged in the wake of each shooting, not only in the areas surrounding each tragedy but throughout the nation as a whole, all the while gun enthusiasts perpetuate the ridiculous myth that "more guns means less gun crime" which appears to as widely believed in the USA as the bible. It is already clear that gun control will be an important issue in the upcoming presidential election; indeed it has been in many elections in the past and I imagine that the rhetoric used this time will not differ greatly from rhetoric used in past elections. The right will embark on an impassioned, nationalist campaign that will reference the 2nd amendment to the constitution and note that any attempt to endanger this archaic part of american law is "unpatriotic." inadvertently justifying the deaths of all estimated 31,000 citizens who will lose their lives to gun violence each year in the USA. Gun control will be a crucial issue for Obama, an opportunity to win back the disillusioned liberals of his nation that he so sorely let down by failing to deliver the social change that he promised in his first election bid. 

Ultimately, not only must the law change to at the very least make it more difficult for private citizens to acquire deadly weapons, but social attitude towards guns has to be dramatically altered to ensure events such as those in Colorado and Wisconsin do not happen again. The average american man or woman must no longer have to feel that the only way they can protect their families, is with live firearms at arms reach at all times. The 31,000 easily preventable deaths that occur each year as a result of guns cannot be justified by a sense of patriotism, the right wing's opposition to gun control must not be seen as a defense of the American way of life. The prevention of deaths attributed to gun crime and the removal of the fear of gun related violence is a moral issue, one that must be addressed by President Obama in the months preceding the election, all as part of an obligation to both the citizens he is charged to protect (in this case from themselves) and an obligation to those who have needlessly lost their lives to an out of control gun culture.

Big Brother: Who And Why?

As I type I find myself back from the pub having watched England glide to an underwhelming 2-1 victory over Italy. Waiting for me is the moon landing of our life time “Celebrity Big Brother: Launch” on Channel 5. Someone called Coleen Nolan has finished a speech about how she despises people who are famous for no legitimate purpose. The looks she received from the other housemates as she entered the house was not the look a God walking amongst men might receive; more the look a drunk might get at a PTA meeting. To be fair to her, the reception the next contestant received by the live audience was akin to the way a sex offender may be received if put in stocks in Liverpool city centre. I can’t profess to have watched Big Brother before but I can’t imagine people who have are impressed by this stock of “celebrities” and more to the point, what kind of society are we living in where these people are the panicle of human achievement?

The term “celebrity” derives from the Middle English “celebrite” and the Latin “Celebritas”…according to TheFreeDictionary.com anyway; and means someone who is celebrated or admired by society. I can understand this in the case of Martin Kemp or at a stretch Julian Clary (both of which I’ve only just noticed are in the house having already mocked the lack of celebrity in the house) but there is a woman in the house who claims “Celeb” status simply by claiming to have had an affair with an athlete whom she doesn’t name, assuming that it’s common knowledge. Now, at what point is that something our society should celebrate? Is that something we should promote to the young women of this country? “Hey girls, I know you’ve just seen incredible human achievement in the last few weeks in the form of the London Olympics and you have potential idols in women like Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, but hey! Why not just shag a footballer?”

It really isn’t my intention to make personal attacks against individuals, I don’t want to turn into one of “those” bloggers, yet it’s difficult to feel anything but pity when you see the housemates. Yes, some are professional celebrities whose goal since their preteen years has been nothing but fame. Others though, are human beings on the down swing of a career that at some time had meaning, human beings who are only taking part in this freak show because they are obeying the orders of the people who handle their PR. Christ, listen to me. I have an opinion on the lives of people I haven’t met.

I’m not really sure how to summarise this short piece of writing, all I can do is impress the importance of aiming for something in life more important than celebrity, encourage the use of empathy for people you’ve never met, ask you to try to not watch big brother and  promise to write something of greater substance soon.

The London Olympics, A Celebration of British Self Conflict And Mixed Feelings

Well it's actually here; article after article, news segment after news segment is reliably informing us that "The World is Arriving!!!" With montages of colourfully track-suited men and women with oddly shaped luggage making their way through Heathrow. To some, particularly those tasked with ensuring this monumental event isn't a complete cock-up, this sounds more like"The Sky is Falling!!!" With the current G4S issues and an increasingly uncomfortable looking budget,  meanwhile the rest of the nation is currently locked in a verbal battle with themselves that usually ends with "That's all very well but, the M40's going to be a nightmare."

When London was awarded the Olympics back in 2005, excitement spread across the nation, partly because we were to see in our capital city the greatest sporting event in the world, a celebration of multiculturalism and human achievement, but mostly because Paris did not get to host this event. We then watched on in awe at the 2008 Olympics in Bejing, as the world came together to forget China's appalling human rights record and give them a hearty pat on the back for still being the go-to guys for a cracking fireworks display. "Shit!" We said, "How are we going to top that?" And some bright spark this year answered that question by giving Danny Boyle a ring and telling him to fill the stadium with livestock.

But wait, what else happened in 2008? Oh yeah, that thing when all the money pissed off. Well it's 2012 and it hasn't shown up again yet, at this point Britain's big moral argument comes into play. The question of how we can justify such a great spend of around £24bn in these times of austerity when schools and hospitals are having their funding cut. We've heard the argument that the Games will generate income through tourism but it's difficult to see how this is going to cover the costs, after all, we'll have to sell 1,847,575,058 "I LOVE LONDON" t-shirts at £12.99 a pop. But then fun Britain says "hey man, you've changed you used to be cool, now it's all about the money" and it's true, the only way we can justify the expense is if we just don't think about it and attempt to enjoy the games, and let's face it, we've had a crap couple of years we owe it to ourselves to ignore the weather, take to the streets with bunting and put on a brave face.

But really, all it ever comes down to is how easily we can nip to Tesco (other supermarkets are available) at any given time, so when we heard about the Games Lanes, we hit the ceiling. At first we shouted without really knowing what the lanes would entail "ooooooh, I see how it is" we said "It's one rule for them and one rule for us, and just because I'm not a Canadian Beach Volleyball enthusiast I can't even get round my own city. Then we apologised for getting slightly out of hand and accepted it would be mostly athletes using the lanes. Even so, the disruption we've had on the roads is obvious already, and I can't imagine many commuters enjoying the tube for the next couple of months, but to fair they rarely do anyway the miserable bunch that they are.

So breath Britain, it is going to be a hectic couple of months but Keep Calm, Carry On. Put your moral judgments aside, accept the opening ceremony might be a let down, try to have fun, do your shopping online and accept that the M40 is indeed going to be a nightmare.