My school is a strong advocate of setting up societies to represent the interests of its students. One of the most recently formed societies is "The Feminist Forum", who meet to discuss and debate prominent issues regarding feminism today. Yesterday, the school held its annual "Freshers Fair", where all of the societies make stalls and advertise their group to the prospective sixth-form students. As a member of the feminist forum, I was asked to write a short article for it's flyer about the relevance of feminism to me as a male in the hope of encouraging more people to join the forum. I thought it might be nice to share it.
Today we live in a world where society wrongly vilifies feminism with images and news of radical ‘feminists’. Men decide that they do not agree with feminism because it is just another word for man hating, and the very nature of the name excludes them. Worst of all is when you find women who feel that they don’t need feminism, because they can live their lives happily without discomfort and fear. All across the world women live in constant fear of genital mutilation, discrimination in the workplace, forced marriages, sexual trafficking, rape and objectification. Why then, is feminism such a divisive issue?
We need to eradicate the social consensus that man haters and “feminists” are synonymous because it could not be more wrong. The sole principle of feminism is equality of the sexes - men included! Stokely Carmichael, and Malcom X were not associated with the civil rights movement because of their black supremacist motives, so why do we not take this same stance with feminism? Instead we carry on incorrectly branding feminists as misandrists and vice versa!
When I see a man disagree with feminism because the name excludes him, I can only respond in one way, and that is by quoting actress Ellen Page: “could it be any more obvious that we live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word?” To me, the constant need to find an argument against feminism is such blatant proof of why feminism is needed, as Page says. What’s more, the arguments that feminism exclude men, are just wrong! The United Nations “He For She” campaign is a perfect example of this! This solidarity movement shows how important it is for men to stand up for women’s rights, for the common goal of equality of the sexes. Feminism is just as representative of male issues as it is female, and the true sentiment of this movement today, is solidarity.
If you eat, does that mean that famine does not exist? No it doesn’t. But people still adopt this parochial view that because the grave issues I have previously mentioned do not affect them, they do not need to stand for the cause against them! What a shocking indictment of the society we live in!
Karl Marx said, “social progression can be measured by the equality of the sexes” and I believe it is this one quote that should encourage you to advocate feminism. How are we to face the greater issues in the world such as climate change, and racial hatred when we cannot live simply together as man and woman? How wrong is it that society spends the majority of its time discussing the semantics of feminism, rather than focusing on the great work it has done, or where it is most needed in society! What we need, is to cut the arguments and actually work together for this great and powerful cause.
Thursday, 25 June 2015
Sunday, 21 June 2015
double standards
Previously, I have only written in angry reaction to somewhat local political issues. Today I plan to look at something not local at all, but still inspired by sheer anger and disgust.
On June 18th Dylann Roof shot 9 people in a black church in Charleston. Upon hearing this news I was absolutely disgusted. This racially motivated attack drew many questions to my head. How could someone carry out such a depraved attack on innocent people in a place of worship? Why does America still have legislature that allows these kind of mass shootings? Why does America still have such an issue with racism? But my main question following this attack is: why isn't Dylann Roof considered a terrorist?
On June 18th Dylann Roof shot 9 people in a black church in Charleston. Upon hearing this news I was absolutely disgusted. This racially motivated attack drew many questions to my head. How could someone carry out such a depraved attack on innocent people in a place of worship? Why does America still have legislature that allows these kind of mass shootings? Why does America still have such an issue with racism? But my main question following this attack is: why isn't Dylann Roof considered a terrorist?
With some thought and reading about this event, I have noticed that the issue is not just America's racist attitudes, but its sheer ignorance to emphasise the white man is guilty for his crimes. The press hardly ever feels the need to clarify ethnicity in an attack by a white man, but as soon as a black person is involved in an attack it is imperative to clarify he is black. It is also imperative to question the leadership of the "black community", and malign the "black community", thus accentuating racist attitudes. Not only do they draw attention to the guilty party's ethnicity, they use adjectives such as "thugs" "animalstic" and "wild". This obvious racism occurs even if the black man is the victim. For example: Mike Brown, shot dead in Ferguson by police, was referred to as "no angel" because he smoked, drank and - now this is the best bit - rapped. Why is this behaviour acceptable?
Why is the same not said for white perpetrators? The "white community" is never brought under the mass media microscope. No, instead we are offered excuses and consolations for the white criminal. Apparently, Dylann Roof had become a loner in recent years! Oh no, poor him! Roof as also been described as "quiet and soft-spoken"! That's absolutely fine then! They also feel the need also to inform us that Dylann Roof "went over the edge when a girl he liked started dating a black guy". Damn. Go on, let him free guys, that's fair enough. Amongst all these pitiful consollations, absolutely nowhere do we see him branded a terrorist. Why is this? Do we need to clarify the definition of terrorist?
Ah no, Dylann was just a quiet, loner with girl troubles, I guess that means he isn't a terrorist, fair enough... Wait... What's this? "Roof's roommate Dalton Tyler has said 'he was big on segregation, and wanted to start a civil war'". Here we see concrete evidence that Dylann Roof is in fact a terrorist - so why is it not being reported this way? Imagine if a Muslim had committed the crime Dylann Roof just has, would they be treated the same way? I highly doubt it. Mass Islamophobia would be rife. Religious leaders would be called into question, their whole religion vilified and scrutinised.
This kind of behaviour is just unacceptable in today's supposed "developed" world. The media must, refer to Dylann Roof, and others as what they truly are - terrorists. Mainstream news circuits, newspapers, magazines and blogs hold such a strong position of influence today, and if we are being exposed to such blatant and obscene dsicrimination, people will carry on thinking that this is an acceptable way to carry on. White media privilege must be stopped.
Thursday, 18 June 2015
the human rights act
As I have previously mentioned, upon the news of the crushing tory majority, I set out to read the Conservative manifesto in a desperate attempt to feel more positive about the next 5 years. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Whilst skimming through the pdf I stumbled upon the Tories plan to abolish the Human Rights Act (HRA), and my heart immediately sank. The manifesto stated that it would abolish the HRA in favour of a 'British Bill of Rights'. Even though it is unknown as to what exactly this alternative entails, I strongly believe that repealing the HRA would be devastating for Britain.
Firstly, lets just establish what exactly the HRA is. After the second world war, nations gathered together to take measures to avoid the atrocities they had let happen in Germany. They set up the United Nations, and a list of universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR would first be incorporated on a continental level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which would then be given legal effect in every country. In Britain's case, the Labour government introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998. The rights a citizen is entitled to under this act are things like: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. In recent years, the HRA has succeeded in giving a voice and bringing justice to the most endangered in society such as women suffering domestic and sexual abuse, child trafficking victims and those with disabilities - no wonder the Tories want to scrap it. I jest, but honestly, there is a need to be concerned. So if the HRA is such a benefit, then why do they wish to abolish it?
Many people use the HRA as an argument for Euroscepticism. As I have explained, the ECHR does influence the HRA, which many interpret as one of the many ways that we are shackled by the EU. However, this argument disintegrates twofold. Firstly, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgements of the European court, and does not directly control them. Secondly, the HRA is not the legislature that asks the UK courts to take into account the European court judgements, it is Article 46 of the ECHR. So basically, repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the effect the EU has on Britain.
What do we know about what is to come, when the act is repealed? The Conservative manifesto says that the new bill will 'break the formal link between British courts and the European Courts of Human Rights'. Theresa May said that Britain could leave the ECHR if British courts did not gain the right to overrule the decisions of the European courts based in Strasbourg, but there have also been comments from 'senior government sources' stating that Britain will not leave the ECHR. So which will it be? If we do leave the ECHR, it will make it severely difficult for people making human rights cases under the ECHR as they would have to travel to Strasbourg for them rather than being able to take them to courts in their own country, thus putting the most vulnerable that I have previously mentioned in more danger. This ECHR hokey cokey, whether we will stay in or out of the ECHR may eventually be dictated by the intentions of this new bill of rights. Theresa May's call for increasing British courts influence may not be compatible with membership of the ECHR because it states that the ECHR ultimately decides cases. Moreover, the development of the new bill of rights is being overseen by Michael Gove, our infamous cabinet minister who thinks we should bring back hanging! which, might I just add, is against the ECHR.
At the moment, the new Conservative proposal just seems very scary, but primarily because it is unclear what is going to happen. The HRA has created great benefits for many, and acts as an effective reminder to this day of how countries joined together in solidarity to prevent the rise of vicious dictatorships, so why is there a need to repeal it? Like I mentioned in my 'patronage' post, this may be another one of Cameron's steps towards making it easier new radical demands.
Firstly, lets just establish what exactly the HRA is. After the second world war, nations gathered together to take measures to avoid the atrocities they had let happen in Germany. They set up the United Nations, and a list of universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR would first be incorporated on a continental level, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which would then be given legal effect in every country. In Britain's case, the Labour government introduced the Human Rights Act in 1998. The rights a citizen is entitled to under this act are things like: the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. In recent years, the HRA has succeeded in giving a voice and bringing justice to the most endangered in society such as women suffering domestic and sexual abuse, child trafficking victims and those with disabilities - no wonder the Tories want to scrap it. I jest, but honestly, there is a need to be concerned. So if the HRA is such a benefit, then why do they wish to abolish it?
Many people use the HRA as an argument for Euroscepticism. As I have explained, the ECHR does influence the HRA, which many interpret as one of the many ways that we are shackled by the EU. However, this argument disintegrates twofold. Firstly, the HRA only obliges our courts to "take into account" judgements of the European court, and does not directly control them. Secondly, the HRA is not the legislature that asks the UK courts to take into account the European court judgements, it is Article 46 of the ECHR. So basically, repealing the HRA would have no effect whatsoever on the effect the EU has on Britain.
What do we know about what is to come, when the act is repealed? The Conservative manifesto says that the new bill will 'break the formal link between British courts and the European Courts of Human Rights'. Theresa May said that Britain could leave the ECHR if British courts did not gain the right to overrule the decisions of the European courts based in Strasbourg, but there have also been comments from 'senior government sources' stating that Britain will not leave the ECHR. So which will it be? If we do leave the ECHR, it will make it severely difficult for people making human rights cases under the ECHR as they would have to travel to Strasbourg for them rather than being able to take them to courts in their own country, thus putting the most vulnerable that I have previously mentioned in more danger. This ECHR hokey cokey, whether we will stay in or out of the ECHR may eventually be dictated by the intentions of this new bill of rights. Theresa May's call for increasing British courts influence may not be compatible with membership of the ECHR because it states that the ECHR ultimately decides cases. Moreover, the development of the new bill of rights is being overseen by Michael Gove, our infamous cabinet minister who thinks we should bring back hanging! which, might I just add, is against the ECHR.
At the moment, the new Conservative proposal just seems very scary, but primarily because it is unclear what is going to happen. The HRA has created great benefits for many, and acts as an effective reminder to this day of how countries joined together in solidarity to prevent the rise of vicious dictatorships, so why is there a need to repeal it? Like I mentioned in my 'patronage' post, this may be another one of Cameron's steps towards making it easier new radical demands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)