So while I should be putting myself to bed absolutely ecstatic that I've had one of the best days in a very long time, defending our title as Liverpool's best university women's rugby team and having a curry night with some of my best friends, I find myself writing this blog.
Tonight I go to bed more worried for the future of the world than I was when I woke up this morning. In the same week that we saw our government vote to cut the bursary for NHS funded courses, the politicians of our country have voted to kill innocent civilians, they have voted to destroy the homes of families and they have voted to encourage people towards radicalisation.
Well they didn't... But they might as well have.
I am just another small fish in a big pond with an opinion, which a lot of the time means nothing. But yes, I disagree with the air strikes. Now I'm not purposefully going all - "I do a degree in politics so I know what I'm talking about and you know nothing." Because it's not entirely true, but I believe that with my education in politics thus far and mere observation of previous international relations, I am somewhat qualified to have an educated opinion on this subject that isn't simply sharing a Bush/Gandhi/Martin Luther King Jr quote on facebook to illustrate the opinion.
So of course, many of you will disagree with me. But if you're sharing mirror articles, George Bush quotes and Britain First-esque posts, then this is what I say to you - sign up for the army. Air strikes will not be enough and in time they will need ground troops, some of them to torture innocent Syrian men, women and children as we have seen before in Abu Ghraib. So please, sign yourselves up.
Some of you may disagree with me with completely valid reasons and that's ok, that's your prerogative. We will each have different ideologies, different thoughts and different minds. We are inherently individual so anyone who has actually attempted to make an educated point on why we should bomb ISIS strongholds in Syria, which many argue is only logically following on from the current troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan (which I don't agree with either) - thank you for adding intelligence to this debate rather than mindless racism. I still don't agree with you and you won't agree with me - but like I said, we wont, that is what democracy is for.
In 2015 I voted for the Green Party, a party I knew from the outset would not advocate war and the destruction of our planet. However the UK voted in a Conservative party majority, currently led by a man who thinks that killing people will educate the people that kill people that killing people is wrong - find this confusing? I think so too.
But yes, as "democracy" will fail us time and time again, our unrepresentative, elitist, disproportionate House of Commons has voted for the air strikes. I'm not going to go into the deeply ingrained unfairness of our democracy because I can't be arsed - read a book.
A quote I saw from someone who reckons they're an academic in International Relations on Facebook - "We need to take our country back!" What is our country? We're an island. We are part of something much bigger that the United Kingdom, United Nations or the European Union - it's the world. Of which we have only one (get where I'm coming from? If not what I'm trying to say is this - let's not screw it up). The world is currently a place where I can't see myself ever wanting to bring a child into, I'd see myself as selfish for having to leave the Earth before a person that I had brought into the destruction, pain and suffering of the world has to endure it.
We can jump into bed with America, we can legitimise crusades in the name of democratic peace, we can bomb ISIS strongholds and we can get rid of terrorism by fighting fire with fire, right?
Wrong.
Muslims who believe their culture has been oppressed by the intrusive West will only feel more marginalised - fueling more movements to extremism. The exact thing we should be educating against.
And hello? A small percentage (of the already small percentage worldwide) are already in this country, so bombing Syria isn't already going to antagonise them? Of course it is. We can grab our giant red white and blue balls and bomb ISIS strongholds, but this is a global movement - bombing their strongholds will only awaken extremists around the world, we don't know who they are, where they are or where they can or will strike next. Paris being a prime example.
"CLOSE THE UK BORDER PETITION." Sweet. So we're going to force people out of their countries and leave them on the border?
Syrians who have fled from the exact people we are waging war against are seeing the superpowers of the world bombing their homes and in turn, the world doing next to nothing to give them a place of refuge. It's a vicious circle and it doesn't matter who is causing it, it matters that these are lives and the people are terrified. The only luck we have over these refugees is the country that we have been born into, it could just as easily be you.
But don't even get me pissing started on the arms trade or the situation regarding oil in the middle East - we are giving these people their weapons so that our country's economy doesn't suffer. I've given up on hope that the government may one day put people before profit in all aspects from job losses to providing people they intend to fight with, with weapons. And oil? If I start, I won't stop talking about it.
All we really need to do is look at what happened with Iraq, history is repeating itself. And remember this - the people who are at the most risk of being killed by terrorists are living in these Eastern countries. In America, you are 187 times more likely to starve to death than be killed by terrorism, which only says to me that the world's priorities need seriously shifting. But again, following an attack on white people from the West (Paris) we are all prepared to go to war. Does this sound similar to the events following 9/11? No? Well I think so and look how that has 'ended'. Many of you who are making a case for these air strikes are the same people that want Tony Blair tried as a war criminal. Cross reference and make one opinion.
Now I don't have the answers on how to solve any of this, many of you will ask me "well, if not air strikes, then what?" My simple answer is - I have no idea. The more I learn about politics, the less I want to be involved with it. I don't understand violence because I can safely say that there is nothing on this Earth that I care about enough that would make me want to bomb for it. So no David Cameron, I am not a "terrorist sympathiser" for not wanting to kill another human being, but I'll tell you what I'm not - a monster. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - so while we're bombing Syria and reciprocating to them what they have done to the West, what jargon do you think they're branding us with? Turning more of the East against the West. We are NOT divided, we are a human race, we are one. Killing is killing and now we're just as monstrous as the perpetrators.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
Thursday, 3 December 2015
Thursday, 5 November 2015
Bigger and better than Crohn's Disease
This morning I saw a trending post on Facebook and I couldn't help but write about it. It was an article from the Independent about a young man called Ste Walker who suffers with Crohn's disease. Many of you do already know, but for those of you that don't, my boyfriend and best friend Sam suffers with the disease. Luckily, Sam's condition doesn't seem as severe as Ste's, but of course, all his struggles are relative to him.
Sam was diagnosed earlier this year, however it was something that we knew had been happening for a while - he now manages his condition with a hefty amount of tablets and has just finished a course of steroids. His steroids have given him bad skin and he has a very weak immune system, meaning that small cases of what we'd see as a bit of a cold, can really affect him and make him ill.
Now - if you met Sam, you would have no idea that this was all going on inside of him. Although he is 23 next week, he is often referred to as "the man-child" for being so hyper and upbeat so unless he comes out and tells you (which he does tend to, as he's quite open about the disease), then you probably would never guess.
Talking to someone everyday, you don't really see the effect that the disease is having on their body, but when I look back to pictures of him at his worst, when he couldn't eat properly and was under 10 stone - I can really see how ill he was.
If I'm honest, I find Sam's disease hard to understand - I'm ashamed to say that sometimes I'll forget and get frustrated if he's too tired to do something or if he's being short tempered with me and it has really tested our relationship. But I always make it clear that he knows that no matter what happens, I'm always here for him - because if I find it difficult to understand, one of the people closest to him, then how can we expect others to? It doesn't matter how much literature I read on the subject or how much people try and explain it to me, Crohn's is a disease that is very hard to understand if you're not going through it. Which I assume is true for many 'invisible' diseases.
There is a very strong link between Crohn's and depression. This is for many, many reasons. The disease can give you extremely painful stomach cramps - making day to day activities difficult such as simply going to work or even leaving the house. This can leave you feeling not only in pain, but helpless - 'normal' people can go to work and go out with their friends with no problem, so why can't you? It doesn't seem fair. It's important that anyone with an 'invisible' disease knows that it's not invisible, people do care and understand and they do want to help you and make you feel better.
A lot of Sam's friends are at University and a few of them have just left for 6 months in Australia and so he feels as though there's very little to do with his time - although he's played football pretty much all his life, even that can be difficult. I know this gets him down, but luckily he has incredibly supportive family and friends, although they may not always be around, myself included. He probably wouldn't say it to many people as he likes to come across as the happiest guy around, but in reality, he's not necessarily. He has good days and bad days, luckily the good outweigh the bad. However, it's important to remember that what's going on, on his face is not always exactly how he feels and we need to be mindful of that.
Later this year (or it could be next year, I'm not sure!), he has signed up to do two marathons in two days in order to raise money for Crohn's and I think it's very important that we all get behind him. It's something that has affected his life in a way that he never could have anticipated and it's something that anyone can develop; there's no known cause or cure.
Reading Ste's story this morning really hit home because although it's hard and it doesn't make Sam's struggle any less of a struggle, you can see that it is not as bad as it could be. I wish Ste all the best on his journey as I know that he is probably going through some very similar experiences to Sam. Something I know too well.
Although it has strained our relationship in the past, it is part of who Sam is and it has made him who he is. I wish I could make his life easier and make it go away, but I wouldn't change our experiences. I believe that everything happens for a reason and Sam is dealing with it incredibly. He is such a strong person and I love him for it.
Sunday, 1 November 2015
Just doing my Best - My day at the Sky Academy
Long time no speak! I haven't blogged in a month as apparently University gets harder the longer you're there. Meaning that I have much less free time and when I'm not reading articles on Colombian Paramilitary Demobilisation or chapters regarding the Speech Act Theory, I do try to maintain some sort of a social life. However! Something has happened to me in the last week that I couldn't possibly go without blogging about!
Last Tuesday I took a trip down to London to take part in the Journalism Insight Day at the Sky Academy. For those of you who know me, please be extremely proud that I managed to get there and back safely. I got on all the right trains at the right times and I didn't even get lost (bravo, bravo).
When I arrived at Syon Lane station, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. Rather than being nervous I walked into the room feeling excited, open-minded and ready to take whatever the day threw at me. The room was welcome, the staff open and the other young people and fellow students were exactly like myself.
It was refreshing to be around ambitious, like-minded people, people who I could definitely envisage in the competitive industry of broadcast journalism.
Firstly, we were sat down and told that we were very privileged to be there, as there were so many applications and so very few places. I couldn't help feeling extremely proud of myself, and the day had barely begun! After being told what to do in the event of a fire and various other formalities, we were given a talk from the legend that is Jim White. He told us riveting stories about his career to date and gave us his invaluable advice which stressed two main points - get contacts in the industry and learn shorthand. This was particularly useful information to me; it further consolidated my knowledge that in the industry of journalism it's ok to be bolshy, to build friendships and ask for phone numbers/emails and it also informed me for the first time that shorthand was an incredbly useful skill that could put you a cut above the rest.
The day continued with talks from Martin Stanford, Laurie Tucker and Mike Kumar - a deputy news editor. Martin highlighted the vast change in journalism with the growth of technology and reminded us that the industry we were looking at that day could change as quickly as overnight. They then led a workshop in which we created a 'mini news show'. We had to write headlines, an introduction, a piece to camera and then decide in which order the stories would be told. A challenging, but fun activity that was highly interactive and got those of the group who may have been slightly more quiet, right in the spotlight.
After lunch we were taken on a tour of the studios which was absolutely breathtaking. The feeling of being in a newsroom was indescribably exciting and (if it's at all possible) made me even more ambitious than I already was! This was followed by another talk concerning internal communications and more active workshops which taught me much more than I could ever learn sat in a lecture theatre.
The day was wrapped up with a "speed networking session" in which we met and talked to many people who worked in all different positions within Sky. They told us a great number of things about their careers and gave us advice on how we could enrich our own. The main thing that I took from this exercise was that education is important but experience is crucial. In order to succeed, we need to put ourselves out there, make our names and go from strength to strength as no one can or will do it for you, but you.
And this goes for anything, going to the Sky Academy taught me that in life it's ok to apply for a position that you may believe is slightly out of your reach, it's ok to ask that question that you might feel is a little risky and it's imperative take any opportunity that is thrown at you, whether expected or not. Because 99 times out of 100, you aren't losing anything, you're building your character and getting ready to jump over the next hurdle that you come across.
This is why after almost a week of reflection, I feel ready to go forth with my life confident that a career in journalism is within my reach if I work hard enough. I can't recommend the Journalism Insight Day enough to anyone aspiring for a career in the field. It has further encouraged me in a way I didn't think was possible, to continue to do my best in order to achieve. My best is all I can do and of course, it's what I'll do.
Last Tuesday I took a trip down to London to take part in the Journalism Insight Day at the Sky Academy. For those of you who know me, please be extremely proud that I managed to get there and back safely. I got on all the right trains at the right times and I didn't even get lost (bravo, bravo).
When I arrived at Syon Lane station, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. Rather than being nervous I walked into the room feeling excited, open-minded and ready to take whatever the day threw at me. The room was welcome, the staff open and the other young people and fellow students were exactly like myself.
It was refreshing to be around ambitious, like-minded people, people who I could definitely envisage in the competitive industry of broadcast journalism.
Firstly, we were sat down and told that we were very privileged to be there, as there were so many applications and so very few places. I couldn't help feeling extremely proud of myself, and the day had barely begun! After being told what to do in the event of a fire and various other formalities, we were given a talk from the legend that is Jim White. He told us riveting stories about his career to date and gave us his invaluable advice which stressed two main points - get contacts in the industry and learn shorthand. This was particularly useful information to me; it further consolidated my knowledge that in the industry of journalism it's ok to be bolshy, to build friendships and ask for phone numbers/emails and it also informed me for the first time that shorthand was an incredbly useful skill that could put you a cut above the rest.
(image from http://www.mainlinemenswear.co.uk/blog/2014/january-transfer-window-round-up)
The day continued with talks from Martin Stanford, Laurie Tucker and Mike Kumar - a deputy news editor. Martin highlighted the vast change in journalism with the growth of technology and reminded us that the industry we were looking at that day could change as quickly as overnight. They then led a workshop in which we created a 'mini news show'. We had to write headlines, an introduction, a piece to camera and then decide in which order the stories would be told. A challenging, but fun activity that was highly interactive and got those of the group who may have been slightly more quiet, right in the spotlight.
After lunch we were taken on a tour of the studios which was absolutely breathtaking. The feeling of being in a newsroom was indescribably exciting and (if it's at all possible) made me even more ambitious than I already was! This was followed by another talk concerning internal communications and more active workshops which taught me much more than I could ever learn sat in a lecture theatre.
The day was wrapped up with a "speed networking session" in which we met and talked to many people who worked in all different positions within Sky. They told us a great number of things about their careers and gave us advice on how we could enrich our own. The main thing that I took from this exercise was that education is important but experience is crucial. In order to succeed, we need to put ourselves out there, make our names and go from strength to strength as no one can or will do it for you, but you.
And this goes for anything, going to the Sky Academy taught me that in life it's ok to apply for a position that you may believe is slightly out of your reach, it's ok to ask that question that you might feel is a little risky and it's imperative take any opportunity that is thrown at you, whether expected or not. Because 99 times out of 100, you aren't losing anything, you're building your character and getting ready to jump over the next hurdle that you come across.
This is why after almost a week of reflection, I feel ready to go forth with my life confident that a career in journalism is within my reach if I work hard enough. I can't recommend the Journalism Insight Day enough to anyone aspiring for a career in the field. It has further encouraged me in a way I didn't think was possible, to continue to do my best in order to achieve. My best is all I can do and of course, it's what I'll do.
Thursday, 24 September 2015
Cameron, Cocaine and a Pig Carcass
You would have had to have been living under a rock to not
have heard of pig-gate over the last couple of days. Oh, and that David Cameron has hosted what the media have called “cocaine parties.”
And as a nation we are shocked - disgusted that the Prime
Minister of our country once had wild days where he put his “private part” into
a pig carcass and snorted a few lines of cocaine. Or are we?
Those of us who have been to University will know all about
initiations of some description. Granted, I have never sexually assaulted a
dead pig, but I’ve done some pretty silly things in the name of trying to prove
myself in similar situations. In those situations, you want to show your new
pals how fun you are, how much of a party animal you are and that you're not a bore and if that means
doing what David Cameron did – then many would say, so be it.
Bloody hell – I know members of sports teams that have done
things of equal craziness; this story, although a great conversation starter,
isn’t really THAT shocking coming from the nature of what he was expected to
do.
So the question is, why do we hold public figures to such
high standards?! Why are they expected to never have any skeletons in their
closet? If you ask me, anyone with a bit of character has made some
questionable decisions in their life and why would you want a leader without
that type of character? David Cameron probably didn't think - "one day I'll be Prime Minister and I will be held to higher standards than another normal human. So I'd best not do what you tell me to do, I'd rather be known as the disobedient fresher and have to do forfeits during my whole University course."
Chances are, Mr Cameron didn't want to disrespect a pig in such a way (it's disgusting), so why did he do it? And why am I not shocked?
Some of you are probably thinking, "well if he's strong willed enough he would just say no and would never do anything horrible that he didn't want to do." But anyone who has been involved in initiations will tell you that, that just isn't how it works. As a fresher, you look to all of your seniors and you know that they have all been through the same things. In a sick sort of way, it makes you closer as a team or group of friends. Again, pretty twisted, but if you prove that you will do whatever it takes to gain their respect, a reciprocal respect grows and you both know what you will do for each other. Which is something that I imagine is really hard to grasp unless it's something you have experienced.
But it’s not just politicians, it’s influential people in
the media. For example when Hunger Games actress Jennifer Lawrence’s nudes got leaked (by some awful, awful
person who obviously has nothing better to do), she had the best response that I
have ever seen. She wrote –
"I started to write an apology, but I don't have anything to say sorry for. I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he is going to look at you."
It is and was always her body, it was up to her who she
decided to share these pictures with, whereas now she has been exploited and
her personal images (that she has every right to take and share them with whomever she pleases) are now out there for everyone to see.
I know for a fact that if I got famous the internet would have
a field day. I’ve made comments on facebook, sent texts and done things that wouldn’t
necessarily be seen as “angelic” but who cares? I should not have to answer to
anyone and right now, I don’t need to, but what if one day I am wrongly expected to? I would argue that there are very few people that haven't at least put one bad thing on social media, sent one mean text or done something that they wish they hadn't because if they were ever in the public eye, they would get slaughtered.
When I was younger, I had vile facebook arguments, I declared that I followed the BNP and I did things that now, I would never ever do and that are so not like me. We underestimate how much people change over the years and the choices they make and their points of view. (Cameron probably (probably) wouldn't violate a pig now).
I suppose this argument is completely irrelevant if do you believe that public figures should be held to higher standards, but I personally, do not. Of course they have done things in their life that are a bit (or a lot) nuts, but they probably didn't expect anyone else to hold them to judgement for it in the future! I think it's sad that we have to stop and think "what would others think?" to such an extent before making decisions for ourselves. The public doth protest too much, methinks.
The thing we forget about these people is that (believe it
or not) they are people. They’ve done stupid things, they’ve made mistakes,
they’ve sexually assaulted a dead pig at uni and we need to get the bloody hell
over it.
I read the Bell Jar not so long ago and something that was quite memorable for me was that a character said - before you do something, imagine how you would feel if it was printed on the front page of a newspaper. I disagree with this from this perspective because it's not the person that is perpetrating the act that is in the wrong, it's the person that is holding them to account and furthermore, those who criticise. So I've changed the perspective of the idea and made it this: Before you criticise anyone else for the decisions they’ve
made, imagine if all the mistakes you’d ever made were on the front page of a
newspaper.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Much ado about Nipples
Get your nips out for
I'm not talking radical Andrea Dworkin - "violation is a synonym for intercourse", scream at a man for holding the door open for you style. I'm talking healthy, contemporary feminism that everyone can fight for, men and women alike.
The F word (feminism, not food) is one that makes me cringe due to its negative connotations. But technically yes, I am a feminist. According to the dictionary, feminism is "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." I think by this definition, most of us by now have realised that men and women need to be equal and we all are therefore "feminists" (huzzah!).
The issue that I'm blogging about today is one that you've probably heard of. It's quite prevalent in Western feminism today - the Free the Nipple campaign. The point of the campaign is relatively simple on paper - to make it socially acceptable for women to go completely topless in public if they choose to and to get websites such as Facebook to relax their censorship rules and make them the same as the rules regarding male nipples. But in practice, it is so much more difficult!
Social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram remove pictures of topless women as they "violate their community standards". It says on the Facebook Community Standards page, "We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple."
This condition specifically singles women's nipples out as something so inappropriate that it is not fit for the public to see. Why? Anatomically, men and women's chests are the same, all that is different is that generally, women have more breast tissue. So if you disagree and feel that women shouldn't be allowed to expose their breasts, then ask yourself why. Why is something that is anatomically the same treated differently between males and females? That my friends, is pretty much the definition of double standards.
A reason why you may disagree with the Free the Nipple campaign may be that you think that children shouldn't see such things, they're too young and people would get too aroused etc.. Let me dispel that for you - you believe this because you have grown up in an era where women are hyper-sexualised. If the only place that we see female nipples is porn or during sex, then of course women's nipples will continue to be associated with sex, despite sex being their secondary purpose. Meaning that "Freeing the Nipple" will remain a taboo. Not only this, but as that is the only place we see them, women are expected to have perfectly symmetrical, perfect sized, perfectly coloured, perfect perfect nipples, which is hardly ever the case. This leads to body confidence issues, despite them being totally unnecessary; although we are all different, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
As a world, we are able to picture, exploit and buy women's bodies. In magazines, on videos and in the flesh. But as women ourselves, we are unable to expose ourselves or live with the freedom to make our own decisions regarding our bodies. Thus they are not our own, they belong to those who can objectify and sell them. But we are not products - we are more powerful than those who can sell us. Only when women have stopped being hyper-sexualised will they gain their full and deserved respect; allowing women to have the choice on whether or not to go topless (like men already have) will be a massive step towards this and equality.
Freeing the nipple will, with time, take away the skewed view of women's nipples as sexual objects and they will finally be normalised, as normal as a man's nipple.
I won't lie, if tomorrow we woke up and it was socially acceptable to bare all if we wanted to, it wouldn't be the first thing on my to do list. I don't particularly want people to see my nipples (I have grown up in an era where women are hyper-sexualised, remember?) but it's the element of choice which is an issue. Men are allowed to have the privilege of choice as to whether they would like to go topless, women are not. I would argue that few women's first priority would be to walk around the streets wearing no top or bra, but few men do. It's not the act itself, it's the principle.
I've read so many different opinions on this, including a man calling the activists "sluts" for wanting to "Free the Nipple," - no this is not a bunch of sluts itching for the chance to show a nipple, this is 21st Century feminism.
Having read this, you may still think that women should cover up and have more self respect and decency - but then you are only fueling the fallacy that men and women are equal and have equal rights. If you really think about the logical reasons as to why women are not allowed this privilege, I doubt you can - because really, there aren't any.
To finish off I just want to say how our troubles that we can't show a little nip may seem like a drop in the ocean compared to Malala Yousafzai, the young girl who was shot in the head by Taliban fighters for voicing her views upon girls in education - but all struggles are relative. So while we pray for (and join!) Malala's fight, we will also fight our own - one nip at a time.
Sources
http://mashable.com/2015/03/16/facebook-new-community-standards/#LpMpSm9KB5km
http://freethenipple.com/
Tuesday, 8 September 2015
To the Man who called me fat on Saturday night,
You probably don't remember me, but I won't forget you. I think that's funny. Something that may be a passing comment for one, will linger in the thoughts of others, floating up and down, coming into sight every so often and at points, consuming them. I won't think of you all the time, I may go for months without thinking about you, but I will remember.
The same way that when I was 11 years old, I remember that I came in crying to my parents because a boy who I was playing on the green with had called me fat. The exact same way that in Year 9 on a school trip to Newquay I wore a bikini as I felt comfortable around my friends, I was called fat by a different boy and haven't felt comfortable since. The same way a man did exactly what you did a few years previous and brought me to tears whilst out with my friends. I will remember like I remember all of these.
You don't know this, you don't know my history or how I have struggled with my body image virtually my whole life. You don't know that you have only added to how awful it makes me feel. You don't know that, that night before I went out, I was in tears because I didn't feel comfortable with how I looked.
Now the thing is Man, eating disorders are serious illnesses; it might not even shock you to find out that you may be part of the reason that anorexia exists, and that it has the highest fatality rate of any mental illness.
You are the reason that I have tried and I have once before made myself sick because I have felt so disgusted with myself.
You are the reason that I will go on believing that I am unattractive and therefore won't get undressed in front of my boyfriend, despite him telling me every single day that I am beautiful.
But the thing is, if I had to identify myself and could only choose one characteristic - it would not be that I am fat. I have fat, like you probably do yourself, but that is not what I am.
I am.
I am kind-hearted. I am happy. I am loved. But I am also human, so no matter how many times that I tell myself these things, your comments still sting.
Approximately 91% of women are unhappy with their bodies - so just remember that 9 girls out of 10 that you see on the street are likely to be deeply offended if you were to comment negatively on their appearance - don't do it at all.
I will probably never see you again, but I hope that you will one day know that what you say can have a lasting effect on people, like it has on myself. I am not alone in this, many other people will not forget things that have upset them. If what you're saying is purely negative, then it is never worth reaching your lips.
Think twice before saying something that will not benefit your character or contribute to the happiness of someone else,
Leah.
http://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/information/statistics-studies
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-body-image
The same way that when I was 11 years old, I remember that I came in crying to my parents because a boy who I was playing on the green with had called me fat. The exact same way that in Year 9 on a school trip to Newquay I wore a bikini as I felt comfortable around my friends, I was called fat by a different boy and haven't felt comfortable since. The same way a man did exactly what you did a few years previous and brought me to tears whilst out with my friends. I will remember like I remember all of these.
You don't know this, you don't know my history or how I have struggled with my body image virtually my whole life. You don't know that you have only added to how awful it makes me feel. You don't know that, that night before I went out, I was in tears because I didn't feel comfortable with how I looked.
Now the thing is Man, eating disorders are serious illnesses; it might not even shock you to find out that you may be part of the reason that anorexia exists, and that it has the highest fatality rate of any mental illness.
You are the reason that I have tried and I have once before made myself sick because I have felt so disgusted with myself.
You are the reason that I will go on believing that I am unattractive and therefore won't get undressed in front of my boyfriend, despite him telling me every single day that I am beautiful.
But the thing is, if I had to identify myself and could only choose one characteristic - it would not be that I am fat. I have fat, like you probably do yourself, but that is not what I am.
I am.
I am kind-hearted. I am happy. I am loved. But I am also human, so no matter how many times that I tell myself these things, your comments still sting.
Approximately 91% of women are unhappy with their bodies - so just remember that 9 girls out of 10 that you see on the street are likely to be deeply offended if you were to comment negatively on their appearance - don't do it at all.
Think twice before saying something that will not benefit your character or contribute to the happiness of someone else,
Leah.
http://www.eatingdisorderhope.com/information/statistics-studies
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-body-image
Wednesday, 26 August 2015
Too Pretty to Play Rugby
Despite this, I do believe that there are some differences between men and women - they tend to play differently. Referring more to rugby, I would argue that in-play, women are more calculative in their decisions when playing whereas men tend to smash each other up and hope for a good outcome - both excellent methods, but still different. Of course, these are massive generalisations and are not always so black and white, women can be just as vicious as men, and men can be just as tactful in their decisions as I have seen women be.
This does not mean that we (women) are not made for contact! Our legs are fast, our bodies are strong and at times, playing rugby is not a walk in the park! Some girls I know have taken some bloody hard hits, sustained some pretty nasty injuries and have also been at the giving end of them.
Some LUWRU injuries, just in case you're interested -
Sian was given this gorgeous shiner only 10 days before starting her new job having graduated from Liverpool University. The other picture is of Amy Brady's leg after it endured a particularly rough game. No one (including herself!) realised quite now bad it was until we stepped off of the pitch. She may bruise like a peach, but no one ever hears her whinging!
Our Tammy dislocated her finger during one training session and STILL came back fighting to be awarded Back of the Season for this year.
Emily Oliver ruptured the cruciates in her knee and has subsequently been absent for the end of the season, we're wishing her a speedy recovery as she's currently undergoing a long course of physio and potentially another operation!
Buzzy Bee, one of the only two fresher second rows, broke her collar bone and had to be cut out of a shirt in A&E. No one had any idea that she'd actually broken anything as she didn't even feel any pain until we were almost back in Liverpool.
Eleanor, (conveniently, the other second row) was also badly injured this season before she'd even set foot on the pitch! In the same training session that left Tammy with a finger at a 90 degree angle, Eleanor broke two bones in her foot. She hopes to return this season with a vengeance!
They're a bunch of bloody hard girls!
So why do we play if we end up getting smashed up and constantly look like we're wearing black and blue tights?
Because playing Rugby is exhilarating. There are few words on this Earth to accurately describe how you feel when you're on the pitch. The adrenaline is so intense you feel as though you're going to burst as you create an indestructible force against another team alongside your best friends. What feeling could top this?
I was 14 when I first decided that I wanted to play rugby, but it wasn't until I was 18 and at Uni that I actually joined a team. Becoming involved in sport isn't always easy, especially when the sport you want to play isn't widely offered and therefore I played in my school team which only consisted of one game and a 7s tournament before the only female P.E. teacher willing to teach us left to work at another school.
Although, I learnt that it is never too late to start! University opens up so many windows of opportunity and becoming involved in sport is one of the most rewarding and exciting ones. I can't recommend it enough, if you can't do it at Uni, when can you?! During my time with LUWRU, I have been lucky enough to play with players of all different abilities, from players who had never touched a rugby ball to some extremely experienced players. This is a photo of Catherine O'Donnell, she is part of the England u20s squad and she also plays for LUWRU. We have the pleasure of playing (and partying) alongside her in the BUCs league. The dynamic of having experienced and inexperienced players only makes us stronger as a team as we learn from each other and we develop pastoral relationships on and off the pitch.
Winning or losing, Rugby is an incredible sport and the people you play against generally mirror the attitude that you give to them. If you're looking for a good, clean game, that's what you'll get. Rugby is a game that is traditionally played by 'gentlemen' and any decent rugby player will recognise that this is a standard that is in our interest to maintain.
But how we feel about the sport doesn't change the sneers and comments that we get from people when they learn that we are rugby players. So I'm just going to share with you some of my least favourite things that have ever been said to me.
- "So you're a lesbian then?"
Something that I have heard way too many times. No I am not a lesbian, but if I was - who cares? The assumption that rugby players are all lesbians is uneducated and wrong. Some people who play rugby are lesbians, some people who play netball are lesbians and some people who don't play any sport at all are lesbians. The fact that a few people still have this ridiculous assumption only shows their ignorance not only to the sport, but to culture today.
- "Oh but don't you have to get up close with lesbians? Doesn't that make you feel uncomfortable?"
I would have absolutely no problem in getting up close to a lesbian on the pitch to tackle them/to scrum alongside them/etc. etc. etc.. Lesbians don't instantly fancy you just because you're female and if you think they do, then you need to deflate your ego. I don't care if there are lesbians on my team or lesbians on the opposing team, we are there for one reason - to play rugby. AND if you're referring to the relationship we have off of the pitch - I care even less about having friends that are lesbian/bisexual/straight/anything else under the sun, because I'm not an arse.
- "But you don't look like a rugby player!"
Of course I look like a rugby player! That is what I am. Whatever your idea is of what a stereotypical rugby girl looks like - forget it and look no further! We are rugby players and as you can see from the picture on the left - we are sexy, so the insinuation that you made that all rugby players are butch and ugly, couldn't be more wrong.
- "You're too pretty to play rugby!"
By far the worst. Since when has being pretty had anything to do with playing a sport and enjoying yourself? Never. You are never 'too pretty' to do anything that will make you happier or a better person. Besides, we can be pretty AND play rugby.
- "But aren't you scared of being hurt?"
I'm scared as much as I would have been had I taken up crochet knitting, except I try to live my life on the more exciting side. Every sport has the potential to injure you and I have seen some fairly brutal injuries during my time playing hockey. Not only this, but you rarely hear people saying to boys - "aren't you scared of being hurt?" No they're not, and no, we're not either.
Finally I would just like to say that Sport England's 'This Girl Can' campaign is absolutely brilliant. Women deserve to be able to play sport for enjoyment and not feel intimidated or like they're being judged. Although different sports will suit different people, I can't emphasise enough how rewarding it is to join a sports team; team sports improve your life in so many ways, fitness, friendships and your general happiness. No matter how old you are or what your ability is - do it, you won't regret it.
http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/national-work/this-girl-can/
Monday, 10 August 2015
The Assumptions made by Enola Gay
On the morning of the 6th of August 1945, the first ever nuclear bomb was used in war. Tens of thousands of people died instantly and the fires that came as a result of the bombs did not go out for three days; killing more and more people as each horrifying day went on. Three days later, a larger device was released over Nagasaki.
This week, people are celebrating the end of the Second World War and the end of the atrocities that it encompassed. By association, celebrating the dropping of these bombs and the obliteration of two cities. 129,000 - 246,000 people were sent to an early grave.
When I was younger (I'm talking until I was 17) I had no tolerance for other people's opinions but now, as far as politics students go - I would say that I'm pretty ok with people having viewpoints that are different to mine. I would argue that the key to peace is knowing and accepting that your opinions and beliefs are different to others. I understand that views on warfare are not easy things for people to agree on and my opinion will grate on the principles of others. However the purpose of this post is not to cause a fight, it is to give my personal understanding - or should I say - lack of understanding of the existence of nuclear weapons.
I feel that this is an appropriate time to make the announcement that I have incredibly good friends that are in the army and my Uncle was a solider. I respect wholly what soldiers have done for our country and how our lives in the UK are better because of what they have done. I believe that if becoming a soldier and fighting for this country is what they view as right, then they should be free to do so. Just because I don't support war, it doesn't mean that I don't understand that many people around the world believe that it is necessary for the betterment or defence of their country. I am not disrespecting soldiers or individuals - I want to make that very clear.
This blog could be the length of 50 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix copies explaining why some people believe that America were in the right for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all being completely valid beliefs. Perhaps your view is that the bombings were an imperative last resort by the Americans as a desperate response to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the torture of American prisoners and most of all, to put an end the atrocities that at the time, the world could see no end to.
War makes no sense to me. I cannot give you a sufficient explanation as to why the Americans should not have used nuclear weapons as a response to what Japan had done, because I do not understand why political/economic/moral disagreements between the countries escalated to war in the first place. I cannot give you an explanation as to why war of any sense is needed to resolve issues, again, because I do not understand it. All I can tell you is that I disagree with it.
Got to be one of my favourite quotes. Some people may argue that Japan surrendered after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so it created peace. Surprise, surprise! I don't agree. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay, world politics changed forever. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped, a premise was set, a moral level of what is acceptable was unveiled. A moral level which told the inhabitants of the Earth that it was ok to destroy others and the planet they live on. The above quote at first seems to be saying that bombing for peace is pointless, just as fucking for virginity is. But as an annoying English student, I see it to mean something different.
*Please excuse this next metaphor*
When a person loses their virginity, whether it's on their wedding night or down an alley - there is always some sort of build up, perhaps between yourself and your partner, or perhaps you haven't told anyone, but you have been wondering what it will be like. There is sense of almost not wanting to do it, not wanting to spoil what can seem so unblemished. But then it is done. It is not something that can be undone, you may not want it to be undone; whatever your view on the matter is - you cannot take back what has happened. That then sets the standard for what is held in the future. Some people find that the build up for the second time they have sex is not quite so big - and soon it may not become a big deal whatsoever. Some people find that the same goes for new partners - after a while it can start to lose its significance.
So rather than simply saying that bombing is pointless; is what these girls meant that when one bomb is dropped, it will simply become routine for countries to eradicate enemies in this manner? Leading ultimately, to the end of the world. This was shown when nuclear weapons were almost used once more only 6 years after Nagasaki when China joined the Korean war.
After the end of the Second World War, countries invested more and more money into defence because if their enemies ever decided to drop a bomb on them - surely they would need weapons to attack back. But if they had weapons in the first place, then perhaps the enemy wouldn't attack them in the fear that they would react. This is what is known as the security dilemma. All these countries are armed with nuclear weapons and each country invests more and more money into them (see the Conservative's shitty plans for Trident) to seem the most powerful in order to prevent other countries from attacking.
And there you have it - that is Realist theory on defence in international relations - something arguably prominent in international politics today.
Realism was the leading school of thought during the Cold War which is arguably the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. The event I'm referring to is the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wont go into it right now, but feel free to google it in your own time.
No, there has been no nuclear war in the last 70 years, but it came agonisingly close in 1962 between the USA and Russia and also the UK joined America in the invasion of Iraq over the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (which have NEVER been found). This proves to me that even the idea of WMD is too dangerous to support to any degree. It also shows how close the world can come to nuclear confrontation if the time calls for it - and nuclear confrontation is not something that is taken lightly or should be seen as an option.
In the 2015 General Election the Green Party, contrary to Realist theory, campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament. This means that they would renounce Britain's nuclear weapons without seeking the equivalent from actual or potential rivals. Dangerous, some might think. Too dangerous to consider.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a campaign to non-violently rid the world of nuclear weapons and other WMD in order to create a safe world for the future. It is a campaign that I support as I don't support war and I don't support the use of or existence of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can only end in two ways, waste or death. The Conservative's plans to upgrade Trident has been estimated to cost £20bn. Why are we investing that money into something that if is used, will only begin the end of the world? Hospitals, schools, welfare, international aid, the environment. Think about where this dead money could have been spent. That's what it is when the WMD are sat underwater with virtually no purpose - dead money. If I'm proved wrong and the bombs are used, then it's likely that no one will be around to say "I told you so."
SOURCES
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hiroshima-nagasaki-70th-anniversary-facts-aftermath-damage-first-nuclear-bombs-used-war-1514194
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/17/trident-future-election-agenda-costs-spiral-nuclear-submarines
This week, people are celebrating the end of the Second World War and the end of the atrocities that it encompassed. By association, celebrating the dropping of these bombs and the obliteration of two cities. 129,000 - 246,000 people were sent to an early grave.
When I was younger (I'm talking until I was 17) I had no tolerance for other people's opinions but now, as far as politics students go - I would say that I'm pretty ok with people having viewpoints that are different to mine. I would argue that the key to peace is knowing and accepting that your opinions and beliefs are different to others. I understand that views on warfare are not easy things for people to agree on and my opinion will grate on the principles of others. However the purpose of this post is not to cause a fight, it is to give my personal understanding - or should I say - lack of understanding of the existence of nuclear weapons.
I feel that this is an appropriate time to make the announcement that I have incredibly good friends that are in the army and my Uncle was a solider. I respect wholly what soldiers have done for our country and how our lives in the UK are better because of what they have done. I believe that if becoming a soldier and fighting for this country is what they view as right, then they should be free to do so. Just because I don't support war, it doesn't mean that I don't understand that many people around the world believe that it is necessary for the betterment or defence of their country. I am not disrespecting soldiers or individuals - I want to make that very clear.
This blog could be the length of 50 Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix copies explaining why some people believe that America were in the right for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all being completely valid beliefs. Perhaps your view is that the bombings were an imperative last resort by the Americans as a desperate response to the attack on Pearl Harbour, the torture of American prisoners and most of all, to put an end the atrocities that at the time, the world could see no end to.
War makes no sense to me. I cannot give you a sufficient explanation as to why the Americans should not have used nuclear weapons as a response to what Japan had done, because I do not understand why political/economic/moral disagreements between the countries escalated to war in the first place. I cannot give you an explanation as to why war of any sense is needed to resolve issues, again, because I do not understand it. All I can tell you is that I disagree with it.
Got to be one of my favourite quotes. Some people may argue that Japan surrendered after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and so it created peace. Surprise, surprise! I don't agree. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay, world politics changed forever. The millisecond after that bomb was dropped, a premise was set, a moral level of what is acceptable was unveiled. A moral level which told the inhabitants of the Earth that it was ok to destroy others and the planet they live on. The above quote at first seems to be saying that bombing for peace is pointless, just as fucking for virginity is. But as an annoying English student, I see it to mean something different.
*Please excuse this next metaphor*
When a person loses their virginity, whether it's on their wedding night or down an alley - there is always some sort of build up, perhaps between yourself and your partner, or perhaps you haven't told anyone, but you have been wondering what it will be like. There is sense of almost not wanting to do it, not wanting to spoil what can seem so unblemished. But then it is done. It is not something that can be undone, you may not want it to be undone; whatever your view on the matter is - you cannot take back what has happened. That then sets the standard for what is held in the future. Some people find that the build up for the second time they have sex is not quite so big - and soon it may not become a big deal whatsoever. Some people find that the same goes for new partners - after a while it can start to lose its significance.
So rather than simply saying that bombing is pointless; is what these girls meant that when one bomb is dropped, it will simply become routine for countries to eradicate enemies in this manner? Leading ultimately, to the end of the world. This was shown when nuclear weapons were almost used once more only 6 years after Nagasaki when China joined the Korean war.
After the end of the Second World War, countries invested more and more money into defence because if their enemies ever decided to drop a bomb on them - surely they would need weapons to attack back. But if they had weapons in the first place, then perhaps the enemy wouldn't attack them in the fear that they would react. This is what is known as the security dilemma. All these countries are armed with nuclear weapons and each country invests more and more money into them (see the Conservative's shitty plans for Trident) to seem the most powerful in order to prevent other countries from attacking.
And there you have it - that is Realist theory on defence in international relations - something arguably prominent in international politics today.
Realism was the leading school of thought during the Cold War which is arguably the closest the world has ever come to nuclear war. The event I'm referring to is the Cuban Missile Crisis. I wont go into it right now, but feel free to google it in your own time.
No, there has been no nuclear war in the last 70 years, but it came agonisingly close in 1962 between the USA and Russia and also the UK joined America in the invasion of Iraq over the supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (which have NEVER been found). This proves to me that even the idea of WMD is too dangerous to support to any degree. It also shows how close the world can come to nuclear confrontation if the time calls for it - and nuclear confrontation is not something that is taken lightly or should be seen as an option.
In the 2015 General Election the Green Party, contrary to Realist theory, campaigned for unilateral nuclear disarmament. This means that they would renounce Britain's nuclear weapons without seeking the equivalent from actual or potential rivals. Dangerous, some might think. Too dangerous to consider.
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is a campaign to non-violently rid the world of nuclear weapons and other WMD in order to create a safe world for the future. It is a campaign that I support as I don't support war and I don't support the use of or existence of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can only end in two ways, waste or death. The Conservative's plans to upgrade Trident has been estimated to cost £20bn. Why are we investing that money into something that if is used, will only begin the end of the world? Hospitals, schools, welfare, international aid, the environment. Think about where this dead money could have been spent. That's what it is when the WMD are sat underwater with virtually no purpose - dead money. If I'm proved wrong and the bombs are used, then it's likely that no one will be around to say "I told you so."
SOURCES
http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hiroshima-nagasaki-70th-anniversary-facts-aftermath-damage-first-nuclear-bombs-used-war-1514194
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/17/trident-future-election-agenda-costs-spiral-nuclear-submarines
Monday, 3 August 2015
10 things that I have learnt at Festivals
This week I'm keeping it very simple: I'm going to tell you 10 things I have personally learnt from going to festivals! If you've ever been to one, I'm certain that you'll be able to relate to several of these and if you haven't - ah well... Welcome.
1. Not showering for 5 days straight is not as horrible as it sounds
- Before I went to my first festival (Reading), I was nervous; mostly due to the fact that I was going to be horribly dirty and unable to shower for 5 days straight. The mere thought revolted me and it was the part that I was least looking forward to. However, it turned out that dry shampoo and a packet of wipes did me fine! Everyone was in the same boat as me and let's face it, in a muddy field full of people off of their faces, very few people give a toss what you smell like - there is no room for self consciousness. Getting home and having the longest bath of my natural life was tremendous and made me feel as clean as the day I was Christened. Although not showering isn't the most fun (or hygienic) thing I've done in my life, it was not as dreadful as I thought it would be.
2. I am not as tall as I thought I was
- Over the course of the few days I am at festivals, I hear a lot of music, but I do not actually see any acts (unless of course, they are on a big screen). BUT! Rather than letting this bother me, I tend to close my eyes and get lost in the music, though it is important to remember to put your sunglasses on (no matter how dark it is) so that people don't think that you're dying. This is something I thought was very individual of me until I told Hannah my cunning tactic and found out she was doing the exact same thing. Being short at festivals isn't something that will ruin your time, plus, if you're short enough then you will be the nominated friend to get on a stranger's shoulders when you've lost the squad which is an incredibly useful tool *ahem* Alex Asher.
3. There are evil people in this world that will attempt to mosh to house music
- My moshing days ended the day that my love for metal ended. Back in't day I went to a Bullet for my Valentine gig and at this particular gig, they were supported by Bring me the Horizon - so you can imagine, there was a lot of moshing. So in certain situations, I can understand why a load of angry adolescents would want to relieve their anger by angrily shoving each other to angry music. As a fan of drum and bass, I can even slightly understand it in this environment, but house? Absolutely not. I can tolerate a skank, even a shuffle, never a mosh. Stay out of my dancing space and I'll stay out of yours. As Hannah and I will tell you, when house music is allowing you to reach Nirvana, there is nothing worse than someone bursting your bubble just as soon as you are on the doorstep.
4. Toilets are more disgusting than I ever thought they could be
- I don't know if you've ever been to Reading festival, but if you have, you will know the extent of the hideousness that I am referring to. Nothing, not even the sincerity of my good friend Bella, could ever have prepared me for what I was about to experience. The "toilets" are a hole sitting above a giant hole filled with excrement that only rises throughout the weekend. Not only this, but each toilet seat is covered in bodily fluids and you can only guess what they are. If (like I did) you arrive on the Wednesday, you have two days before you can enter the music arena where the toilets there are only marginally better.
5. Pulling at festivals has to be the most grimey thing in the world
- Not showering for days on end makes you smell like ass, not showering for days on end when you're sleeping in a tent and surrounded by lots of people in a crowd - not even worth trying to describe. Sharing that filth and various other uninviting bodily fluids with another human that you don't know sounds like THE worst possible thing I could imagine. Trying to explain this reasoning to some random who attempted to get with me during Disclosure didn't go down too well as I'm sure you can imagine.
6. Wellies are a gift from God
- If you're at a festival in the UK, it is probably raining or has rained or will rain soon. Therefore wellies will help you from being knee deep in mud/whatever the hell is on the floor. I'm sure Jessica Clayton regrets her decision of not wearing wellies when her big toenail fell off following a heavy skank/sidestep at X. She has well and truly learnt her lesson regarding footwear. Bless her! (I would post a picture of it, but I'm scared she'll dump me as best friend.)
7. Drinks are atrociously expensive
- It is no wonder why UK festivals are notorious for their drug culture when they are able to charge £4 for a bottle of beer. I'm a giant lightweight and that would cost me over £20 to get mildly tipsy for a few hours, let alone sloshed for the whole weekend - which was the general aim of the festival. Unless (like myself) you are lucky enough to sneak in a bottle of vodka, you can end up paying another hundred or so pounds on top of what can already be a very expensive ticket, depending on which festival you have chosen. Best options (I would suggest) are either to rob a bank beforehand, take out a second mortgage or sell a kidney if you aren't planning to try and smuggle alcohol into the event.
8. I discovered music that I had no idea I liked
- From Flume to ScHoolboy Q, festivals have had me standing in a crowd, loving life and the music despite having no idea what I'm listening to. They have introduced me to new artists and new genres alike; I would probably have no idea how much I liked grime had I not been to a festival.
9. 95% of people want to be your best friend
- Almost everyone is so friendly. That guy pissing on your tent? Friendly! That dealer walking around the crowd repeating "Charlie, Mandy, Cat."? Friendly! And you are just another one of those super happy dappy clappy friendly people loving life. The small 5% are those who are just looking to get into fights, but I would argue that there is a similar (if not higher) percentage if you go out to town on a Saturday night, so to the untrained eye, they go largely unnoticed.
10. You have THE best time of your life
- It was only a year before my first festival that I was completely repulsed by the idea of one. I was beyond skeptical about them, vowed I would never go and it was only severe FOMO and an old friend that managed to persuade me. I discovered that I was so very wrong about them. I had an incredible time, from the awful toilets, to eating canned all-day breakfasts and everything that once sounded like hell, I discovered that it was actually just a muddy heaven. I urge anyone who hasn't been to one to go A$AP Rocky. If you're not a fan of camping and you're too precious to go a few days without showering - don't be put off! Ease yourself in with one where you don't have to camp - there are plenty! Or just throw yourself in the deep-end like I did and come back and try to tell me that you didn't enjoy it.
1. Not showering for 5 days straight is not as horrible as it sounds
- Before I went to my first festival (Reading), I was nervous; mostly due to the fact that I was going to be horribly dirty and unable to shower for 5 days straight. The mere thought revolted me and it was the part that I was least looking forward to. However, it turned out that dry shampoo and a packet of wipes did me fine! Everyone was in the same boat as me and let's face it, in a muddy field full of people off of their faces, very few people give a toss what you smell like - there is no room for self consciousness. Getting home and having the longest bath of my natural life was tremendous and made me feel as clean as the day I was Christened. Although not showering isn't the most fun (or hygienic) thing I've done in my life, it was not as dreadful as I thought it would be.
2. I am not as tall as I thought I was
- Over the course of the few days I am at festivals, I hear a lot of music, but I do not actually see any acts (unless of course, they are on a big screen). BUT! Rather than letting this bother me, I tend to close my eyes and get lost in the music, though it is important to remember to put your sunglasses on (no matter how dark it is) so that people don't think that you're dying. This is something I thought was very individual of me until I told Hannah my cunning tactic and found out she was doing the exact same thing. Being short at festivals isn't something that will ruin your time, plus, if you're short enough then you will be the nominated friend to get on a stranger's shoulders when you've lost the squad which is an incredibly useful tool *ahem* Alex Asher.
3. There are evil people in this world that will attempt to mosh to house music
- My moshing days ended the day that my love for metal ended. Back in't day I went to a Bullet for my Valentine gig and at this particular gig, they were supported by Bring me the Horizon - so you can imagine, there was a lot of moshing. So in certain situations, I can understand why a load of angry adolescents would want to relieve their anger by angrily shoving each other to angry music. As a fan of drum and bass, I can even slightly understand it in this environment, but house? Absolutely not. I can tolerate a skank, even a shuffle, never a mosh. Stay out of my dancing space and I'll stay out of yours. As Hannah and I will tell you, when house music is allowing you to reach Nirvana, there is nothing worse than someone bursting your bubble just as soon as you are on the doorstep.
4. Toilets are more disgusting than I ever thought they could be
- I don't know if you've ever been to Reading festival, but if you have, you will know the extent of the hideousness that I am referring to. Nothing, not even the sincerity of my good friend Bella, could ever have prepared me for what I was about to experience. The "toilets" are a hole sitting above a giant hole filled with excrement that only rises throughout the weekend. Not only this, but each toilet seat is covered in bodily fluids and you can only guess what they are. If (like I did) you arrive on the Wednesday, you have two days before you can enter the music arena where the toilets there are only marginally better.
5. Pulling at festivals has to be the most grimey thing in the world
- Not showering for days on end makes you smell like ass, not showering for days on end when you're sleeping in a tent and surrounded by lots of people in a crowd - not even worth trying to describe. Sharing that filth and various other uninviting bodily fluids with another human that you don't know sounds like THE worst possible thing I could imagine. Trying to explain this reasoning to some random who attempted to get with me during Disclosure didn't go down too well as I'm sure you can imagine.
6. Wellies are a gift from God
- If you're at a festival in the UK, it is probably raining or has rained or will rain soon. Therefore wellies will help you from being knee deep in mud/whatever the hell is on the floor. I'm sure Jessica Clayton regrets her decision of not wearing wellies when her big toenail fell off following a heavy skank/sidestep at X. She has well and truly learnt her lesson regarding footwear. Bless her! (I would post a picture of it, but I'm scared she'll dump me as best friend.)
7. Drinks are atrociously expensive
- It is no wonder why UK festivals are notorious for their drug culture when they are able to charge £4 for a bottle of beer. I'm a giant lightweight and that would cost me over £20 to get mildly tipsy for a few hours, let alone sloshed for the whole weekend - which was the general aim of the festival. Unless (like myself) you are lucky enough to sneak in a bottle of vodka, you can end up paying another hundred or so pounds on top of what can already be a very expensive ticket, depending on which festival you have chosen. Best options (I would suggest) are either to rob a bank beforehand, take out a second mortgage or sell a kidney if you aren't planning to try and smuggle alcohol into the event.
8. I discovered music that I had no idea I liked
- From Flume to ScHoolboy Q, festivals have had me standing in a crowd, loving life and the music despite having no idea what I'm listening to. They have introduced me to new artists and new genres alike; I would probably have no idea how much I liked grime had I not been to a festival.
9. 95% of people want to be your best friend
- Almost everyone is so friendly. That guy pissing on your tent? Friendly! That dealer walking around the crowd repeating "Charlie, Mandy, Cat."? Friendly! And you are just another one of those super happy dappy clappy friendly people loving life. The small 5% are those who are just looking to get into fights, but I would argue that there is a similar (if not higher) percentage if you go out to town on a Saturday night, so to the untrained eye, they go largely unnoticed.
10. You have THE best time of your life
- It was only a year before my first festival that I was completely repulsed by the idea of one. I was beyond skeptical about them, vowed I would never go and it was only severe FOMO and an old friend that managed to persuade me. I discovered that I was so very wrong about them. I had an incredible time, from the awful toilets, to eating canned all-day breakfasts and everything that once sounded like hell, I discovered that it was actually just a muddy heaven. I urge anyone who hasn't been to one to go A$AP Rocky. If you're not a fan of camping and you're too precious to go a few days without showering - don't be put off! Ease yourself in with one where you don't have to camp - there are plenty! Or just throw yourself in the deep-end like I did and come back and try to tell me that you didn't enjoy it.
Tuesday, 21 July 2015
Healthy and Happy, Positive and Accepting - "Real Women" in 2015
Very few of you will have noticed that the blog is a wee bit late this week; I have been ill (I am never ill). So I am in quarantine, watching the 40 year old Virgin and feeling sorry for myself whilst drinking copious amounts of water and eating dry toast.
Moving swiftly along - this week my blog is discussing the attitudes towards different sized women in the modelling industry. The other week, I read an article and the link was entitled "Here's what Victoria's Secret swimsuits look like on real women." The use of the phrase "real women" made me squirm. To me, the title suggested that the writer thought that Victoria's Secret models aren't real women because they are simply smaller, more toned and let's face it, more Photoshopped than the average woman. But (and I might seem naive for saying this) I think that there's only so much Photoshop can do; if they want to show slim women, they will pick slim women to be the models in the first place. So that left the bigger issue - that the writer suggested that they were not "real women" because of what they looked like.
And so I thought to myself: What do we think a "real woman" is in 2015? Now, more than ever, more plus-sized women are on the modelling scene and I think we'd be stupid to ignore this new culture of "skinny shaming" that we're seeing all over the place now that (arguably) modelling isn't exclusive to those that are size 6 or below. This led me to the conclusion that the Victoria's Secret article was a covert form of skinny shaming.
All you need to do to know what skinny shaming is, is look at Meghan Trainor's lyrics in "All about that Bass" - awful song, awful message. I'm not even going to dissect the lyrics and tell you which bits are unacceptable, because I hope many of you will agree with me, and will already be able to tell me - it's plainly obvious.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliant that larger women are finding happiness in their own skin, but putting others down to find that happiness? That is what I am not a fan of.
Moving swiftly along - this week my blog is discussing the attitudes towards different sized women in the modelling industry. The other week, I read an article and the link was entitled "Here's what Victoria's Secret swimsuits look like on real women." The use of the phrase "real women" made me squirm. To me, the title suggested that the writer thought that Victoria's Secret models aren't real women because they are simply smaller, more toned and let's face it, more Photoshopped than the average woman. But (and I might seem naive for saying this) I think that there's only so much Photoshop can do; if they want to show slim women, they will pick slim women to be the models in the first place. So that left the bigger issue - that the writer suggested that they were not "real women" because of what they looked like.
And so I thought to myself: What do we think a "real woman" is in 2015? Now, more than ever, more plus-sized women are on the modelling scene and I think we'd be stupid to ignore this new culture of "skinny shaming" that we're seeing all over the place now that (arguably) modelling isn't exclusive to those that are size 6 or below. This led me to the conclusion that the Victoria's Secret article was a covert form of skinny shaming.
All you need to do to know what skinny shaming is, is look at Meghan Trainor's lyrics in "All about that Bass" - awful song, awful message. I'm not even going to dissect the lyrics and tell you which bits are unacceptable, because I hope many of you will agree with me, and will already be able to tell me - it's plainly obvious.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's brilliant that larger women are finding happiness in their own skin, but putting others down to find that happiness? That is what I am not a fan of.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you'll probably have heard of this lady above - Tess Holliday. She is the first size 26 model to be signed by a major industry - Milk Management. In terms of making a statement - of course, she's done it! But is it the right way in which to challenge the norm? I'm not so sure. I don't believe that the way to combat unhealthy slim models saturating the modelling industry is to attempt to decrease their significance by replacing them with equally as unhealthy, plus-sized women. Whenever you put someone on a public platform, they become someone's inspiration. It could be 10 people, it could be 1 million people - setting the right type of inspiration is important in this business.
Another woman you may also know - Australian model Robyn Lawley. At size 12, she is also a plus-sized model. Yep, you read it right, plus-sized. I have insecurities, much like many of you reading this. I am a size 12, but am I plus-sized? I wouldn't class myself as plus-sized. And neither should anyone else, including the modelling industry. The average dress size in the UK is size 16, so I (like many others) am shocked that a woman as slim as this is being classed as this. By having size 12 models classed as plus-sized despite being 2 whole dress sizes below the national average, it implicitly shames larger women and signifies that it is more desirable and 'normal' to be less than plus-sized, which is depicted here as size 12. (Which may I just say, is a perfectly fabulous size to be, not that I am biased at all.)
Views of what is found typically beautiful in a woman has changed over history. We can see this if we look to the Renaissance period (1300 - 1700AD) where in art, everyone appears to be nakey. My good friend Faith Harvey (History of Art student; potentially the most pretentious degree I've ever heard of, but you've gotta love our Faith) told me that the reason for this was primarily to celebrate the human form. We can see that the 'ideal' is far from what we might see in modern art or photography today. This shows that without a doubt, the notion of beauty has not always been the same as we believe it is now.
Marilyn Monroe peaked as an international sex symbol in the 1950s and early 60s, before her untimely death in '62. Despite there being much disagreement over what size she may have been, the smallest that has been estimated with any real credibility was a UK 8. Small, but still larger than the average model today. Marilyn Monroe was and is still seen by many as classically beautiful - this is without being as slim as other models now and around that time period.
60s supermodel Twiggy - given this nickname due to her extremely thin figure, was one of the first models blamed for eating disorders in young women. She has however, always maintained that being slim was all down to genetics and she was never unhealthy. She has even spoken out against girls starving themselves in order to obtain bodies like those shown in magazines or on catwalks. Many models have quite literally starved themselves to death, for example the sisters Luisel and Eliana Ramos both died due to complications related to malnutrition and anorexia. Eliana aged only 18. The underlying issue of suggesting that to be thin is the only way we can be beautiful is not only that we pressure regular girls to attempt to achieve these unobtainable expectations, but unhealthy models with BMIs of 15 also feel that they are "too fat" to succeed in the industry. Making girls with anorexia nervosa models, such as Luisel and Eliana, can be detrimental to their mental and physical health. Which is why modelling should not be exclusive to thin girls - it should be exclusive to healthy girls.
Although if we look at models in recent centuries, it's easy to see how the idea that being thin is best hasn't really changed that much. In the 90s, the modelling industry was dominated by Kate Moss and now Cara Delevingne - two models I absolutely love for numerous reasons! Also two models who maintain that in terms of their weight - they are healthy and it is down to genetics (which is absolutely fair enough - some people are built that way!). However, they are both incredibly similar and like Twiggy - very slim. Showing that as a society, the type of model that we find appropriate has barely changed, thus putting pressure on women who weren't necessarily built this way to attempt to obtain these "ideals". By only having one popular image of what is beautiful, it ignores all the rest - and of course, there are many.
I'm under no illusions - I know that the use of this type of girl as a model is an advertising tactic based on the notion that clothes look better on slimmer women and therefore more people will want to buy the clothes. However, I don't believe this is true! Plenty of men and women find different body shapes in women attractive. Some people love the slim catwalk look, some love curvy girls and some love size 26 girls like Tess Holliday. It's all very personal, so why in the past have modelling agencies only had very slim (and sometimes unhealthy-looking) girls as their models? I would argue that with the plus-sized world making the impact it has recently, this could possibly change in future.
But unfortunately, I am still not satisfied. I don't feel that we should fight fire with fire. Why should we start a war between slim and large girls? Why can't we celebrate health rather than body shape? And why on Earth do we not have models of all shapes and sizes rather than only having those at separate ends of the spectrum? We need a more accurate representation of the women in our society. By this, I don't mean that we should have all models at a size 16 as that is the average - I mean some size 6s, some size 8s, some size 10s and so on. A little anecdote for you - I no longer shop online because I am sick of all the models being size 6 - when I buy the clothes they look astronomically different on me to how they do on the website so there's no point in me going on as I may as well be shopping with my eyes closed. This could be changed so easily by having different sized models to give a more accurate representation of what clothes would look like on a variety of girls and I am positive that the industry has enough money to do this.
Marilyn Monroe peaked as an international sex symbol in the 1950s and early 60s, before her untimely death in '62. Despite there being much disagreement over what size she may have been, the smallest that has been estimated with any real credibility was a UK 8. Small, but still larger than the average model today. Marilyn Monroe was and is still seen by many as classically beautiful - this is without being as slim as other models now and around that time period.
Although if we look at models in recent centuries, it's easy to see how the idea that being thin is best hasn't really changed that much. In the 90s, the modelling industry was dominated by Kate Moss and now Cara Delevingne - two models I absolutely love for numerous reasons! Also two models who maintain that in terms of their weight - they are healthy and it is down to genetics (which is absolutely fair enough - some people are built that way!). However, they are both incredibly similar and like Twiggy - very slim. Showing that as a society, the type of model that we find appropriate has barely changed, thus putting pressure on women who weren't necessarily built this way to attempt to obtain these "ideals". By only having one popular image of what is beautiful, it ignores all the rest - and of course, there are many.
I'm under no illusions - I know that the use of this type of girl as a model is an advertising tactic based on the notion that clothes look better on slimmer women and therefore more people will want to buy the clothes. However, I don't believe this is true! Plenty of men and women find different body shapes in women attractive. Some people love the slim catwalk look, some love curvy girls and some love size 26 girls like Tess Holliday. It's all very personal, so why in the past have modelling agencies only had very slim (and sometimes unhealthy-looking) girls as their models? I would argue that with the plus-sized world making the impact it has recently, this could possibly change in future.
But unfortunately, I am still not satisfied. I don't feel that we should fight fire with fire. Why should we start a war between slim and large girls? Why can't we celebrate health rather than body shape? And why on Earth do we not have models of all shapes and sizes rather than only having those at separate ends of the spectrum? We need a more accurate representation of the women in our society. By this, I don't mean that we should have all models at a size 16 as that is the average - I mean some size 6s, some size 8s, some size 10s and so on. A little anecdote for you - I no longer shop online because I am sick of all the models being size 6 - when I buy the clothes they look astronomically different on me to how they do on the website so there's no point in me going on as I may as well be shopping with my eyes closed. This could be changed so easily by having different sized models to give a more accurate representation of what clothes would look like on a variety of girls and I am positive that the industry has enough money to do this.
So what we need is a change in industry and more importantly - a change in attitude.
The industry must be changed so that it is inclusive for women of all shapes and sizes. Not simply "fat" vs "skinny" which is not only a negative way of challenging the norm, but it actually excludes the vast majority of us.
And attitude? Well that's up to us to realise that what we see in magazines is not how we need to live our lives. When we accept this and show the industry that their standards are not something we need to live up to, then maybe they will see how stupid their suggestion is that one type of body shape is beautiful. We need to be comfortable in our own skin and comfortable in the knowledge that it's ok to be different. If being comfortable in your own skin means eating more healthily and going for a fortnightly jog - do it. If it means eating three good meals a day because you don't already - do it. The most important thing is that you are happy and healthy, finding a balance can be incredibly hard but it is not impossible.
Lastly, to compliment this change that we hope to see in the modelling industry, we need to celebrate diversity in a positive way. Body shaming in any proportion is not something we should need to do to empower ourselves. Do not be judgemental towards those who do not wish to look the same, or do the same things as you do. Positivity and acceptance for who you are and positivity and acceptance towards the choices that other people make for themselves is crucial to create a happy and healthy society.
The industry must be changed so that it is inclusive for women of all shapes and sizes. Not simply "fat" vs "skinny" which is not only a negative way of challenging the norm, but it actually excludes the vast majority of us.
And attitude? Well that's up to us to realise that what we see in magazines is not how we need to live our lives. When we accept this and show the industry that their standards are not something we need to live up to, then maybe they will see how stupid their suggestion is that one type of body shape is beautiful. We need to be comfortable in our own skin and comfortable in the knowledge that it's ok to be different. If being comfortable in your own skin means eating more healthily and going for a fortnightly jog - do it. If it means eating three good meals a day because you don't already - do it. The most important thing is that you are happy and healthy, finding a balance can be incredibly hard but it is not impossible.
Lastly, to compliment this change that we hope to see in the modelling industry, we need to celebrate diversity in a positive way. Body shaming in any proportion is not something we should need to do to empower ourselves. Do not be judgemental towards those who do not wish to look the same, or do the same things as you do. Positivity and acceptance for who you are and positivity and acceptance towards the choices that other people make for themselves is crucial to create a happy and healthy society.
Sources
http://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker/heres-what-victorias-secret-swimsuits-look-like-on-real-wome?bffbstyle&utm_term=4ldqphh#.che3lEvyD
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/06/debenhams-size-16-mannequins-diversity?CMP=fb_gu
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker/heres-what-victorias-secret-swimsuits-look-like-on-real-wome?bffbstyle&utm_term=4ldqphh#.che3lEvyD
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2013/nov/06/debenhams-size-16-mannequins-diversity?CMP=fb_gu
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/
Monday, 13 July 2015
The Fox and the Hound
Take a look at the picture and think about what you see.
Love? Family? Do they remind you of a family pet? A member of your family? A particular person? Or do you just see animals?
As far as I'm concerned, any of those thoughts are entirely valid. Many others that didn't come to my mind straight away, will be also. The point of that exercise, ladies and gents, was to humanize these animals. Looking at them, I find that they are not dissimilar to dogs - I don't think that even the most prolific meat eater can deny that. Dogs - an animal that we would be horrified to see anything bad happen to. Look to the dog eating festival in China and how many of us from the West were disturbed, despite chickens and cows going through the same experience simply for the satisfaction of our tastebuds. The point I'm trying to make is that which animals "should" and "shouldn't" be harmed is completely arbitrary and we are conditioned to believe so, based on our culture.
Many of you will know that there is currently a ban on Fox Hunting; the Hunting Act of 2004 made it illegal to hunt wild mammals with a dog. But this week, there will be a vote on whether to repeal the act or not.
For those of you that don't know, fox hunting is where posh people dressed like utter knobheads train dogs to find and kill/rip apart red foxes for "fun". They are training dogs to be killers when the dogs know no better. Hounds kill families of foxes while they attempt to flee for their lives, it would be a terribly different situation if the foxes were training the dogs to kill the hunters and their families, eh? If a dog killed an innocent human, it would be put down, so why should we celebrate and praise dogs for killing innocent foxes?
I find it very difficult to believe that this is even an issue in this day and age. I've said before that I was under the impression that we had been educated beyond seeing the body of a mutilated animal as amusing. If that's what you find amusing, then I suggest you lock yourself in a room with some sort of gaming console because you clearly haven't ventured into the 21st Century. I'm all for children getting out in the open and getting their heads into books instead of iPads, but it seems that they need to hand their iPads to hunters who appear to not be able to find anything better to do with their lives (in an age where there is more to do for fun than kill).
The fact is, fox hunting (which originated in the 16th Century) is archaic and has no place in the UK where it is seen as cruel, barbaric and inhumane by many, many people.
We've all (hopefully) been shocked by Kendall Jones' and Rebecca Francis' pictures of their trophy hunting in Africa.
N.B. I use these examples as people are likely to know who they are NOT because they are females. I believe that they have been unfairly targeted in the media as they are attractive females and we are not accustomed to seeing attractive females hunting. For the record, this does not mean that they are any better than any other trophy hunter. They are all awful.
So WHY if we've all been so shocked by trophy hunting in Africa, are some of the leaders of our country willing to regress to this inhumane, anthropocentric practice? The answer - for "sport".
David Cameron, with whom I have little beef, because as far as Conservative leaders go, he's been OK (still a bit of a bell, but OK), has said - "I have always been a strong supporter of country sports. It is my firm belief that people should have the freedom to hunt, so I share the frustration that many people feel about the Hunting Act and the way it was brought in by the last government. The Hunting Act has done nothing for animal welfare. A Conservative Government will give Parliament the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote, with a government Bill in government time." One of the many reasons why I did not vote Conservative.
Of course, this view is shared by many others, I was following a car with a "Countryside Alliance" bumper sticker saying something about repealing the Fox Hunting ban. Now, while I managed to refrain from ramming into the back of the imbecile, it showed me that the people that I personally find disgusting and barbaric are not too far from home.
On the contrary, there is the organisation Blue Fox - Conservatives against Fox Hunting. These are members of the Conservative party who will be voting to keep the ban on fox hunting as they believe it is the right decision; good for animals, the countryside and society.
However, we need to do everything we can to help, so I urge you all, if you agree with me, to sign the petitions on these links to show the lack of support there is for repealing the Hunting Act.
AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME watch Disney's Fox and the Hound (easily one of my favourites) and be moved by the friendship that forms between Tod and Copper. If you still do not agree, you are a lost cause and I pray you step on an upturned plug.
But all hope is not lost! Many MPs have already decided that they are going to vote against it, however very few people have predicted the outcome - based on a few votes, it is pivotal.
Sources
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)