They are not your scapegoats

Updated: 11:13am 14 November 2015

Last nights attacks on various locations in and around Paris, including the Bataclan arts centre, Stade de France, and a restaurant in the 10^th arrondissement have left 127 people dead and around 180 injured. We now know that Islamic State have claimed responsibility for the attacks, stating that they were carried out in response to air strikes.

The locations of the attacks.

Last nights events are nothing short of terrifying and horrific, and the fact that anyone has to die at the hands of terrorism is appalling in itself. Yet some people are ignoring the initial horrors at hand and instead choosing to focus on a wider debate of how terrorism links to the current refugee crisis in Europe. The fact that Islamic State carried out the attacks has led some people to, by an illogical extension, blame the general Muslim population. There have been reports that terrorist organisations such as ISIS are infiltrating the journeys of genuine refugees in order to bring its members to carry out terrorist attacks in Europe, and this has ultimately led some to adopt an anti-refugee stance.

Twitter is by no means the place to expect coherent and logical arguments to stem from, but it’s really outdone itself tonight. A number of people have taken to social media to air their views, one tweet reading “the events in Paris are extremely worrying but again this will only happen again until the EU stops this migrant crisis”, another “most Muslims love what happened in Paris tonight”.

To link refugees to the terrorist attacks is undeniably short-sighted and racist. It’s an argument that fails to take into account the very reason why refugees are fleeing their home countries in the first place; to escape the oppressive regimes that are destroying the lives of people who live there. To suggest that borders should be closed is to say that nobody deserves to strive for a better life for themselves and their families. To bring refugees down to the same level of terrorists is to essentially dehumanise them. These are real people with the most horrific and unimaginable problems, yet there are some who are willing to let them suffer under regimes, all under a false pretense of combatting terrorism. I say false pretense because it’s hard to believe that the people who hold these views have any real or logical opinion on how to combat terrorism, but they use it to try and justify their racism and xenophobia.

Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, a backlash against the general Muslim population forced Muslims to actively condemn the attack, having being lumped in the same category as terrorists. When the KKK march through the streets of small town America (yes, it still happens), nobody takes to social media to blame all white people for their actions. Yet when a terrorist attack occurs, people everywhere jump to condemn Islam, thus spreading unnecessary fear; which is ultimately one of the primary goals of terrorists themselves. It’s honestly so sad that Muslims feel as though they have to actively come out and condemn an attack that has absolutely no relation to them or their religion. Yet if they simply stay silent, they’re faced with unapologetic Islamophobia that holds them responsible for the actions of a few.

A tragedy such as this one is not a platform for you to promote your political views, your racism and more specifically your Islamophobia and anti-refugee stance. Terrorism has no religion. Refugees are not your scapegoats.

Pride and Party Politics

It was 5am, May 8th, and I was on the phone to my Mum. I was angry, upset, devastated. The thought of five more years of a Conservative government scared me. And so I did something about it, and joined the Labour Party.

I have always been a leftie. With a mother who swears mainly about David Cameron and a father who calls himself a Marxist, how couldn’t I be? As a Politics student, of course I am interested in the UK government. I study politics in order to hopefully one day be part of the change I want to see in the world. However, back in May I just didn’t know which Party I wanted to cast my vote for.

I considered the Greens, SNP and Labour. Green policies appealed to me; they were so radically left, but quite frankly far too idealistic and many not so well thought out. What is more, Natalie Bennett really did lack any of the qualities of a Prime Minister, not least to convey her passion and be inspiring, which through failed interviews and stuttered answers, did not come across.

The SNP was a party I seriously considered for a while, but I think even then I was sceptical of whether the left wing rhetoric they espoused would translate into left wing policy.

It was Labour that got my vote in the end, but it saddens me to say that this was not because I truly believed in their policies or found Ed Miliband inspiring. Rather, the goal with my vote was to keep Britain free from harsh Tory policy making, and the Labour Party were realistically the only viable option to potentially hold office. Still, I could not help feeling like I had cast a vote for the lesser of two evils.

This article could very easily be about Jeremy Corbyn, but it is not. I’m a far left social justice warrior feminist, of course Corbyn definitely gives me hope for a future I want. In many ways, it was Corbyn who inspired me to become more active in the Labour Party, because he represented so much of what I truly believe in. However, I can’t often help but feel distant from him as a leader. He is someone who is set in their views and often unwilling to compromise or put much effort in to uniting the party in the way it so desperately needs to be.

If I am really honest, his Shadow Cabinet appointments were alienating. Goals of socialism, such as equality, liberation, justice and fairness, are goals we simply cannot achieve without the input of oppressed groups in society. To see no women in positions of power is something you would expect from a right wing government, not the socialist paradise that Corbyn’s leadership is supposed to be. The Conservatives are putting more women in positions of real power than Labour, which is terribly disconcerting.

What really inspired me to take action beyond my vote and my Labour Party member card, was the Scottish Labour Party. I came away from the Scottish Labour Conference at the weekend feeling something I had never felt before for a political party: an immense feeling of pride and solidarity. This was a party I believed in. This was a party I wanted to see in government. This was a party who could deliver real change. Together, Ian Murray MP and Kezia Dugdale MSP carry the Scottish Labour Party with a vision that simply did not exist at Westminster on May 7th with Miliband. It is their commitment to true Social Democratic values and confidence in the abilities of the Labour Party that makes the party one I feel proud of.

Kez’s speech at Conference gave me chills. I had never felt so impassioned by a political speech before then, and I came away awestruck. This was a woman I could trust to do everything in her power to deliver Labour seats in Scottish Parliament next year. Unlike Jeremy, whose passion can sometimes err on the side of aggression, Kez was personable. She is someone I can identify with.

As a woman in the world of politics, seeing a woman as the Leader of a Party is inspiring in itself. The line “We don’t just need women in positions of power, we need Feminists in positions of influence” was bold and resonated with me. Kez went where very few politicians dare to go, identifying with a word that is often seen as dirty and tarnished. She committed herself to gender equality and the liberation of women within the realm of politics; a difficult and commendable stance to take.

As some one from a state school, I have seen first hand our failing education system. It upsets me that in UK general elections, education is never really on the agenda. It is even ignored in discourse by Corbyn. Like Kez said, “if there is a silver bullet to slay the monsters of poverty, inequality and ignorance, then it is education”, yet we never seem to talk about it in politics. This is a woman who is putting the most important tool available to humanity back on the agenda. And not because it is politically sound, because it clearly is not ‘on trend’ in current affairs, but because she truly cares. That is the attitude of a woman I want to see leading not just the Scottish Labour Party, but the country.

In May, I voted to keep Tories out. The Scottish Labour conference inspired me to make the decision that, next year, I will be registering to vote up in Edinburgh for the Scottish Parliamentary Elections. When I voted for Miliband in the General Election in May, it was a vote in my mind for the lesser of two evils. When I use my two votes for Labour in Scotland next year, it will be a vote for values I am proud to believe in.

The Personal is the Political

Self-centred bitch. That’s what I think of as the title for this article; slightly ironically admittedly. Still, the very fact that I think that writing an article about putting myself and my needs first makes my mind jump to this title is wholly problematic. The fact I worry about people’s thoughts and opinions when I write this and talk yet again, about female pleasure, makes me feel uncomfortable and angry. I think about the people who will think I hate men for expressing my feelings towards gender inequality and oppression and I think about not publishing this.

I’m sitting at a flat party. It’s getting to the time of the night where every one is suitably intoxicated to speak to one another without feeling awkward. And so I start speaking to a guy. It’s going OK, until I realise that I am probably speaking for about 15% of the time, whilst he speaks for about 85% of the time. For his 85%, I listen intently, nodding along, laughing and adding the odd “yes” or “I know what you mean”. For my 15%, I try and keep what I say to a minimum because it is becoming obvious that this guy doesn’t give a shit about what I am telling him. And I mean, who wouldn’t want to listen to me talking about the importance of social policy for underprivileged groups? Instead, his mind clearly wanders, as he is either looking around the room or at my exposed legs or my tits.

As I came to this slow realisation, I begin to distance myself. Making an excuse to leave and chatting to other people, whilst he still appears very much interested. And then it hits me…the wave of guilt. The guilt for rejecting someone who quite literally let me speak for 15% of a conversation, barely asked me anything about myself and didn’t even look at my face when speaking to me. I woke up in the morning, having left the party alone, and felt an overwhelming sense of relief and gladness that nothing had happened between us. But it got me thinking about what might have happened if I had invited him back and something had occurred between us, and the links started establishing themselves, the wires connecting in my head.

Despite considering myself a confident person, I can almost wholly predict that whatever sexual encounter might have happened between us, would have been on his terms and for his pleasure. If the sex we had was non-penetrative, I would feel that guilt that ‘pleasuring a woman takes too long’ and slowly become self conscious about this and stop enjoying it. If it was penetrative sex, then that sex would be over as soon as he came. And it is this conceptualisation of the ‘end of sex’ which is one of the most problematic things in a heterosexual encounter. In porn, films, literature, and real life, it is depicted and accepted generally that sex ends when a man ejaculates. Put quite simply, this epitomises the argument that women’s pleasure is secondary in the vast majority of depictions of sex. The female orgasm is an extra, a gift, a favour. It is not a right in the way that the male orgasm is. And no, it is not made ok just because men get “blue balls”. Do not try and tell me that the only reason we wait only for a man to orgasm is nothing to do with personal pleasure. Women do not leave sexual encounters where they haven’t reached orgasm feeling a-ok physically either. It is just that mentally, we have been taught to accept this as a norm. The female orgasm just isn’t that important, so we are taught.

This anecdote is no personal attack, but rather an example to illustrate feelings I have felt for years. It is about how gender affects what kind of sex you will get and the distribution of pleasure you will receive. It is about an unfair balance of power that exists not only in the streets, but in the sheets. It is about the fact that women feel inequalities even in one of the most natural of human activities. When we discuss women’s rights/liberation, we focus on what is public, when in many ways some of the most obvious inequalities and oppressions that exist, are things that remain taboo. The personal is the political. 

It’s about time we started talking about this and changing people’s attitudes towards sex. It’s time for real sex education for men and women that includes sex for pleasure of all genders, not just sex for reproduction. For, as long as women are having shitty sex, they will never be equal or liberated.

Apathetic? You Wish.

Youth apathy – it’s a stereotype favoured by the British media and politicians alike. A quick Google search of the term returns no less than 847,000 results, including headlines that read “Apathetic and Disaffected: The Generation Who May Never Vote”, while another asks “Has Our Generation Lost Faith?” Only 43% of people aged 18-24 voted in May’s election, the lowest turnout of any age group, but with young people increasingly at the forefront of social media and grassroots activism, are voting statistics really the fairest way to determine the enthusiasm of British youth?

Since the general election, anti-austerity marches have lined the streets of many cities up and down the country, from Leeds to Liverpool to London. Among the protestors were hundreds of students who will arguably be some of the hardest hit by new Conservative Party measures. Regardless of whether these people voted or not, their involvement in these events undoubtedly demonstrated their willingness to engage with politics, be it directly or indirectly.

One of the most frustrating and unfortunate things that young people have to deal with as they engage with the world of politics is the constant backlash from other voters telling them they’re too young to understand how politics works. It seems that young people just can’t win; first they’re stereotyped as apathetic, yet when they do engage in politics their views are rendered irrelevant.

In the lead up to the General Election, Abby Tomlinson came to prominence as the leader of the “Milifandom”, something she describes as a “movement against the distorted media portrayals of Ed Miliband”. At 17, she isn’t currently eligible to vote, but that hasn’t stopped her from writing about politics day in day out, whether it be on her Twitter (@twcuddleston), or for newspapers and websites such as the Guardian, and the Huffington Post. Having met Abby at one of the Labour hustings in July, it’s not hard to see that she’s someone who knows what she’s talking about. She’s had the opportunity to interview all of the Labour leadership and deputy leadership candidates, and she’s appeared on BBC and Sky News alongside the likes of political writer and war veteran Harry Leslie Smith. Yet she’s still experienced an ardent amount of online abuse, most of which uses her age as the main insulting factor. One tweet reads: “who cares what @twcuddleston says? She isn’t even 18 yet. Talk to her about One Direction and alcopops”, another: “since when did the political opinion of little girls matter enough to air on the news?”

What is conveniently forgotten amid such backlash is the numerous things that young people can legally do before they’re 18. At 16 years old, teenagers can legally have sex, join the army, leave home, and have a full-time job. For those who choose to exercise these new rights, they can be huge steps; steps that arguably put teenagers on the path towards adulthood. Yet in the world of politics, they’re still seen, and spoken to, as children who have no experience of the real world.

The aforementioned Conservative austerity measures won’t necessarily have the heaviest impact on those who currently sit in the 18-24 age bracket. Instead, measures such as the reform of maintenance grants, and cuts to housing benefits will have a drastic impact on those who weren’t even able to defend their voice in May’s General Election. There is no better case for reducing the voting age to 16 than knowing that young people will finally get to have a say on the matters that affect them the most.

The media, politicians, and what seems to be just about everyone on social media has got it wrong about young people. They do care. Some have no faith in a political system that speaks to them, not for them. Some are too young to be allowed to express their opinion. Some are simply too afraid to speak out in a world that constantly tells them that their opinions are irrelevant. But make no mistake about it, whether it be by campaigning on the streets or debating on social media, young people are going to stop at nothing to ensure that their voices will be heard.

We Need to Talk about Sexual Harassment

There’s been a lot of confusion this morning as various news outlets reported that Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn was calling for the introduction of women-only carriages on trains. So, to clear this up, here is his actual statement on the matter:

Note that calling for a discussion with women on the matter is not the same as blindly supporting it. It’s a shame that issues such as street harassment and sexual abuse are still being discussed today, but the reality is that many women still face harassment on a day to day basis. It’s great that Corbyn is (rightly) allowing women to lead the discussion on what needs to happen to ensure that they feel safe throughout the day, whether it be at home, at work, or on public transport. You can read the rest of Corbyn’s pledge to end street harassment here.

But why has the issue of women-only carriages caused so much debate? Initially, the measure may seem ideal; it’s seemingly put in place to ensure that women are able to travel without the possibility of encountering harassment by men. A nice thought, considering that 32% of women in London say that they’ve been verbally harassed on public transport; 19% have been victims of direct physical abuse.

The reality of the measure is however, much less appealing.

Saying that women should travel in single-sex carriages to avoid harassment is much the same as suggesting that women should dress conservatively in order to avoid being raped. The measure places responsibility in the hands of women. It perpetuates the idea that women should be on constant alert for any breaches to their safety.  It suggests that women who choose to travel with men on public transport are asking to be sexually assaulted, and that they have no one to blame but themselves when it happens.

It fails to place the blame on those who are carrying out this abuse and causing women to feel unsafe on their journeys in the first place. Even though there has been an increase in reports of sexual crime (up 20.8% in the 12 months leading up to March 2014), with the culture of victim-blaming, it’s no wonder that most harassment on public transport is thought to go unreported.

Aside from the idea that women shouldn’t have to be resigned to travelling in single-sex carriages, the measure is completely impractical in terms of funding and policing. The cost of running such carriages would be unjustifiable considering the little impact they would have. Additionally, policing such carriages would be virtually impossible, as cuts to forces means that there would simply be a shortfall of police presence on public transport. Sexual harassment doesn’t end when a woman steps off the train. Instead, it’s a daily occurrence in many women’s lives. From the train to the street, from their workplace to their homes, women are constantly wondering when the next assault will take place.

It’s a shame that the issue of sexual harassment is only covered by the media when a man draws attention to it, but its attention none the less. The fact that women don’t feel safe on public transport should be worrying enough, but the fact that some have suggested women-only carriages, regardless of the associated flaws, shows that we need to have a serious discussion on how best to end sexual harassment, not just on public transport, but everywhere.

The Arts: Worth it or Worthless?

The idea that a Bachelor of Arts degree is useless is by no means a new one. For years, the debate between choosing to study something you love, or studying something that will earn you money has been at the forefront of every prospective university students mind. But where does the responsibility lie for these the negative connotations, and how do we ensure that the arts are taken as seriously as degrees like Medicine and Law?

I started studying International History and Politics at the University of Leeds last year. I knew that with a humanities degree, it would be highly unlikely that I’d be in lectures and seminars from 9-5 everyday, but it was a shock when I found out that I’d have only 7 contact hours per week in my first semester, and just 5 in the second. I, like the majority of UK university students pay £9000 in tuition fees. Although that rate is extortionate for any degree, knowing that I’m paying such a large amount for so little makes my head spin. For those studying science, engineering, technology, or mathematics (STEM), who often have long and intense days at university, that £9k figure seems almost (but not quite) justifiable. My first year at university doesn’t count towards my final grade, so I presumed that my second year would bring about a heavier workload and more hours in university. I was wrong. Having just received my timetable for the upcoming year, I was dismayed to see that my contact hours have been reduced even further, to just 4 hours per week. In fact, one of my compulsory modules has no contact time at all, and I’m essentially paying a sixth of my tuition fees for the privilege; that’s an expensive library card.

With such a disparity between arts and STEM degrees, is there any wonder as to why the arts attract such a negative stereotype? With hardly any time spent in university, I find myself rushing to fill my spare time, which does have its benefits. It gives me the chance to have a part-time job, get more involved with societies, and write and edit articles. But I can’t shake the feeling of wanting to be taught a subject I love. Knowing that what I study isn’t as highly regarded as STEM degrees is disheartening, and I would gladly take on a heavier workload if it meant that my degree would be taken more seriously by my future employers.

The negative attitudes against arts degrees start forming long before the first day at university. At GCSE level, students may be discouraged from taking “easy” subjects such as Media, Dance, and Drama, but they are encouraged, and in some cases forced to take the Triple Science Award which delivers a GCSE in each of the science subjects. Students begin their GCSE’s at just 14 years of age, an age at which many have no idea of what they want to be doing in 5 years’ time, and perhaps rightly so; they’re only children. But we’re already instilling the idea that in order to be successful, they have to limit themselves to a select few subjects. Fast forward two years to A-Levels, and the same pattern is apparent. It’s common to see students taking Maths and Science, or English and History. But it’s rare that the two mix.

Revising for your final A-Level exams as well as making the necessary preparations for university makes for a frightening and anxious final year at school, and it’s important that all students are given the adequate help and advice to ensure that they’re ready for their future. However, this is often not the case. Those who are hoping to go on to study Medicine and Law, or aspiring to gain a place at Oxford or Cambridge University have to take a number of exams that play a key role in determining whether or not they will gain a university place. Looking back to my final year at Sixth Form, I remember that these students went to weekly meetings where they were given help and advice on their future plans. But when it came to everyone else, we mostly had only each other to turn to. Of course, this is not to say that Medical students didn’t deserve the help they received, but rather that help shouldn’t just be available to a select few.

A Bachelor of Arts degree includes anything from Art History to Psychology, Creative Writing to Media, including the humanities Geography, History, and Philosophy. We need people to continue taking these degrees, but there needs to be drastic change in the way that they’re taught. The arts are vital. They help us to think critically about the world around us, and they provide us with a rounded view of societies past and present. But is studying them for just a few hours a week really worth the money?

Not everyone can excel in STEM subjects, and that’s more than okay. The problem is that by consistently focusing on and recruiting for STEM degrees, universities risk producing an abundance of arts graduates who are filled with nothing but worry for their futures. Providing that the resources are available, dedicating just a few more hours per week to arts degrees could make a huge difference to those who study them, whether it be in terms of providing them with the help they need and deserve, or just simply showing that their degree field is legitimate and worth studying for.

Testing, testing 1 2 3…

“But your GCSEs don’t even matter”

“GCSEs are easy”

”GCSEs don’t mean anything when you do “A” Levels”

It’s GCSE results day tomorrow, which means that the inevitable stream of belittling comments on the examinations which 14-16 year olds sit in the UK is creeping up on us. For many in Year 11, this will be the most nerve-wracking day of their life so far, as they await grades which determine the next steps they can take in their future.

To put to bed the criticisms written above: GCSEs do matter in terms of what you go on to do next. They are far from easy. (Some Universities will take them into account if that is what you decide to do.)

 To set the record straight, the young people of England and Wales are put under an immense amount of pressure. In fact, coming to university and talking to my friends from all around the world made me realise just how intense our education system is for young people, some of whom are sitting examinations at aged just 14. For example, in Canada, there is a lot more project-based work, often marked as coursework, and grades are taken at various points over the final years of schooling, but there is no intense set period of time at the end of each of the four years by any means. In Norway, they have a system where some exams are responded to orally, giving students more variety in the way they are assessed. In Scotland, they can get into university after three years of examinations, as opposed to the four in England and Wales if you do GCSEs and “A” Levels. The long and short of it is, by European and even global standards, we have some of the most intense and rigorous testing methods, and it is making our young people unwell.

I recently read this article in the Guardian about the pressure of GCSE examinations and it reminded me of my time doing GCSEs three years ago now.

 A 2004 CAMHS study found that 1 in 10 young people suffer from a diagnosed mental health disorder, with evidence suggesting that it is has been on the rise over the past few decades. I worry for a generation who now sit the vast majority of their GCSEs at the end of Year 11, meaning that some of them have around twenty exams within the space of about a month. At 16, most of us already had a lot to deal with in the whole “growing up game” that takes place: changing friendships and relationships, morphing personalities, sometimes tumultuous family dynamics, the list goes on. Add to that the pressure of exams that determine a large part of your future and it’s pretty difficult.

 For me, I worried about my brother, who is currently awaiting his results this Thursday, that this pressure would be too much for him. However, miraculously, he remained relatively calm. Still, I really don’t think a 16 year-old should have had to put themselves under such intense pressure and work so hard simply out of the fear of what that little piece of paper will have on it in August.

 I think a lot of that fear came from my personal experience of GCSE examinations. On the first day of Year 10, aged 14, I went into school, met my new classes and teachers, was told about these all important examinations which were going to determine my future, and felt very overwhelmed. On the second day of Year 10, in the morning, I was physically sick. Naturally thinking I had a bug, I didn’t go into school. But then it happened on the third and fourth and fifth and sixth day. It slowly became apparent to me and my family that this wasn’t a ‘physical’ illness, but the result of stress and anxiety. This stress and anxiety stemmed from thinking about how this would ultimately impact what job I could get at age 21 when catching every episode of Hollyoaks was still one of my top priorities in life. My attendance was sporadic in Year 11. I couldn’t face sitting my exams in the Main Hall because of the intensity of the environment. I only went in because I knew that I had no choice, because it was illegal not to. I did not put a full week in at school from January of my Year 11 until the day I finished.

I came away with 5A*s and 4As, as well as crippling anxiety, at times depression and a round of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). And the truly sad thing is, it was worth it. I am now at the University of Edinburgh on a course that required me to get 5A*s at GCSE for a guaranteed place. I had to make myself ill in order to get where I wanted to go in life. And really, that’s pretty damned wrong.

I know that I am not alone in my story. The answer was not to test less throughout the year and simply move all of the exams to the end of Year 11, as they have done recently. Surely it is to reduce the number of examinations and pieces of coursework overall; to lessen the strain on young people. To try to do something about the emphasis that some top universities still place on exams sat at age 15 or 16, shifting it so that it is almost entirely based on ‘A’ Levels when students are much older and have less subjects and so less exams. Something has to change. It has to change fast, because for every year this unnecessary amount of pressure continues, more stories like mine emerge.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Review of the Labour Leadership Race

If you’re anything like me, you’ll be sick to death of the Labour leadership race by now. It’s hard to believe that it’s only been 100 days since the defeat of the Labour Party at the General Election, it almost feels a lifetime ago. Those 100 days have been dominated by the leadership race, from the shock ballot nomination of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn early on in the contest, to the personal attacks from candidate to candidate in the past couple of weeks. Despite being a fan of Ed Miliband, I was hoping that the leadership race would bring some spark back to the Labour Party, but I, like many other party members have been left less than enthused about what the next 5 years could be like under a new leader.

Left to right: Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, Jeremy Corbyn

One of the main talking points of the race has been Jeremy Corbyn; a breath of fresh air for some, and a headache for others. Having scraped together 36 nominations at the last minute, Corbyn became the fourth and final MP to make it on to the ballot paper. An MP since 1983, he’s well known for taking a stand against austerity, war, and poverty. But despite being the candidate that arguably represents the true core values of the Labour Party (it is a democratic socialist party after all), his presence on the ballot paper has led to intervention from high profile individuals such as Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and Alistair Campbell. It was MP’s such as Diane Abbot, Frank Field, and Sadiq Khan who nominated Corbyn, even if they don’t necessarily support his politics. Dawn Butler, another MP who nominated Corbyn, stated in this now infamous interview with Kay Burley that it was the duty of the MPs to make sure there were many different people on the ballot to ensure that there was the widest possible debate in the party. However, judging by the backlash that Corbyn has faced, it seems that people only want democracy until their favourite politician isn’t on course to win.

Jeremy Corbyn, MP for Islington North since 1983

Jeremy Corbyn didn’t enter the contest with the view that he was going to become party leader, but recent polls have been suggesting that the MP for Islington North is on course to win the contest by a huge margin, with some also claiming that he is the most popular candidate among voters from all parties. However, as always we should take these polls with a pinch of salt. Nothing is certain until the ballot papers are counted and verified.

Constant input and influence from former politicians and aides is annoying enough, but the most frustrating thing about the race has undoubtedly been the attacks on Corbyn from his fellow leadership candidates Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, and Liz Kendall. Throughout the race, Burnham and Cooper have treaded tentatively around the subject of so-called ‘Corbynmania’, both unwilling to rule out serving in a Corbyn cabinet, or whether or not they would have a place for him in theirs. However, the past week has seen a complete change of strategy in the Burnham and Cooper camps, with Burnham claiming that Jeremy Corbyn will make Labour a party of protest, and Cooper going as far as saying that he is offering “old solutions to old problems, not new answers to the problems of today”.

On the other hand, leadership hopeful Liz Kendall has thoroughly opposed Corbyn from the start, which is understandable seeing as she represents the Blairites of the party. Yet it’s not her opposition to Corbyn that’s the problem; she’s allowed an opinion just as much as anyone else is. The problem with Kendall is the way she puts her opposition across. She’s criticised Burnham and Cooper on numerous occasions for even considering giving Corbyn a place in their cabinet. Her most severe attack on her rival came just several days ago, as she warned members to vote for only three of the four candidates on their preferential ballot, leaving Corbyn off the ballot completely.

Liz Kendall, MP for Leicester West, has urged voters to avoid voting for left-winger Jeremy Corbyn

Perhaps it was too idealist to presume that each candidate could just focus on their own campaign rather than try to discredit the other voices, but the attacks have left me and many other Labour supporters feeling somewhat underwhelmed by the candidates. Claims that Labour MP’s will try to oust Corbyn should he gain the leadership isn’t the the sort of rhetoric that is going to fill Labour members and voters with hope and enthusiasm for the future. If their party isn’t going to be united under a Corbyn leadership, then what chance has it got in 2020?

This isn’t to say that people can’t have an opinion on each of the candidates, but the perpetual personal attacks are growing tiresome. How much simpler the contest would be if all the candidates focused on putting their best foot forward; surely avoiding becoming enthralled by the vitriolic criticism would make their campaigns seem less immature? From the very start, Jeremy Corbyn promised to avoid making personal attacks on his fellow politicians, and it’s a promise he’s stuck to. Perhaps this is one of the reasons he’s proving so popular with Labour party members?

But it’s not just the candidates who are engaging in such criticism, Labour Party members, supporters, and really just about everyone else have been expressing their opinions on the leadership race. Although it’s a brilliant tool to speak with like-minded people and spark debate, social media is largely unrepresentative of the population. Behind a screen, people feel free to post whatever they want, no matter how vicious.

Liz Kendall has arguably been the subject of the most online abuse in the past few months, with many suggesting that her views would be better appreciated in the Conservative Party. The Photoshops of Kendall wearing a blue rosette might seem funny at first, but the verbal abuse she has faced is anything but. Just like Corbyn and his socialist politics, Kendall and her Blairite views have every right to be part of the race.

Liz Kendall’s Blairite views have caused some Labour supporters to suggest that her ideas would be better appreciated in the Conservative Party

The final thing that won’t be missed? The amount of literature that has been distributed to Labour Party supporters since May. Another day, another letter from Labour; whether it’s to ask for donations, or a candidate pleading for your vote, Labour Party members have no chance of forgetting which party they belong to. Here you can read Sophie Heawood’s humorous piece on the matter. Her article echoes what everyone seems to be thinking; stop spamming us! The personalisation of emails, texts, and letters verges on embarrassing; we don’t know the candidates on a personal level, so why pretend? The casual manner of the contact masks a desperate plea for support, but it’s easy to see straight through it. Something tells me that when the leadership race comes to a close, the emails will continue to flow, but at the very least I can hope to stop getting emails from Caroline Flint with a subject line reading “I don’t want to talk about irrelevant rubbish” (ironic, seeing as I received 3 emails from her in as many days).

The leadership race should have injected Labour supporters with enthusiasm and hope, but instead they can’t wait for it to be over. It’s only natural that the party would be fragmented after such an unprecedented defeat in May, but the contest should have been the time to demonstrate that the party could remain united in preparation for 2020, regardless of the political leaning of its leader. One thing is for sure though, when the ballot papers are collected and the results are announced, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that it’s finally over.

I’ve got something to say (and apparently that’s a problem)

***Content Warning: violence, misogyny, sexual violence

I am not the first woman to be verbally insulted, abused and threatened on the internet, and as a realist, I doubt I will be the last. The Everyday Sexism Project was founded in 2012 by Laura Bates and has since documented thousands of experiences of sexism and misogyny directed towards women, many of which can take place on the internet. It is projects like these which continue to highlight the fact that women continue to be discriminated against on the basis of their gender, and I am exhausted of being told otherwise.

Feminism often operates within a safe space, a space where oppressed groups have their voices heard. Unfortunately, I have to accept that it would be pretty difficult to operate a safe space policy in the harsh world of politics. I am a realist. I know that a person needs thick skin if they are to enter such a world and I am trying to prepare myself for that world. However, I also believe that world needs reforming. It should not be the case that a woman must grow a thicker skin than a man. And it should not be the case that she has to pander to what is expected of her in a male dominated world. Not only do women have to overcome the same obstacles that men do, we must overcome those related to our gender on top of that. That is why it is unreasonable of men to tell us to have a thicker skin, because what they are really asking is that our skin is twice as thick as theirs. Quite frankly, if this is what I have to look forward to when I finish my degree in Politics, it fills me with apprehension.

For this article, I come back to a time on the Internet where I was subjected to a torrent of abuse on a scale I had never previously experienced. I was upset by the comments attacking me, but what really angered me was that many of these were based on my gender and not my arguments. The core issue is that what I say should not matter if it is an opinion which is not attacking someone else. Freedom of speech is held accountable by hate speech legislation. However, if what a person says is not hate speech, then they have a right to say it. The responses I, and other women receive for voicing an opinion should not belittle using vocabulary directly related to the fact that we are women.

I am tired of certain men defending other men. I am a woman who has been the victim of sexism and I can see it pretty clearly. For a man to tell me that another man isn’t sexist for his minor sexist insults, only to later develop into blatant misogyny is ignorance of what true sexism is. And it ignores the everyday sexism we face which little by little adds up to create a world where Feminism is still very much needed to fight for liberation and equality. Feminism is about equality of the sexes and liberation, but that statement shouldn’t be taken superficially. If you simply preach equality, but do nothing to deconstruct the institutions, language and structures in place at the core of gender oppression then to me when faced with them, that isn’t feminism. I am not saying to be feminist you have to necessarily be really active, but when you see something that is clearly gender oppression, do not excuse it, listen to the person who is telling you it is oppressive. Listen to women’s experiences. It will take you pretty far.

I’d like to take some of this article to dissect a few of the things that were said to me:

***Content Warning: violence, misogyny, sexual violence

 

‘You are sprouting utter tripe, my dear’

My dear can be used affectionately. It is synonymous with something like ‘darling’ in many contexts. However, it is often used by men as a tool to undermine women by patronising and belittling them, as it was in this case. David Cameron even used it in the House of Commons during the coalition government. Argue with me as a human being, do not undermine me because of my gender.

‘My intention wasn’t to patronise, therefore you shouldn’t be offended’

You should always be aware of your language, regardless of your gender. If someone calls you out on something, assess your language. If they tell you they are offended, it is most likely the case that you have said something out of line. Listen to people’s experiences. You are allowed to disagree with people, but just hear them out.

‘You wanna [sic] be Ms ******’

The presumption that women are often fuelled by some romantic obsession with men is a prevalent notion in today’s society. The idea that jealousy underpins our actions is actually pretty ancient which is why it’s laughable that it still exists today. Shakespeare writes some good stuff on this. I am a woman who has political views. I am also a woman who happens to have romantic ideals. The two do not overlap; they are separate.

The violent misogynistic threats I received were just vile, saying that:

‘She needs her head bashed in…..with some common sense’ and that if I couldn’t get over myself then I should ‘suck cock in the dead sea’

People often excuse these comments as a joke, but I can assure you that they are not. The fact that these comments were liked and supported also shows that they were not simply the isolated actions of an individual ‘troll’, but supported by other sexist/misogynist men.

All of this unravelled and spiralled out of control because of many interplaying factors. I raised my voice against something I thought was wrong. Some people disagreed with me. Some of those people then had no real argument and so they decided to attack me on the basis of my gender, rather than my points. Some just didn’t listen. Others simply jumped onto the thread as an excuse it appeared to verbally abuse me, be that because of my outspoken nature or in some cases, the bare fact that I am a woman. And finally, the core issue…

I come back to the issue of safe space. I believe it’s unrealistic to achieve the true aims of the safe spaces that I’m often a part of in the sphere of the Internet. I also know that many feminists strive for this goal and will disagree with me. However, women have a right to take part in debate and discussion without being the victim of sexist abuse, be this from a comment to a violent threat. We should be working to tackle this, rather than accepting blatant sexism and misogyny in the name of freedom of speech by acknowledging the legislation of hate speech also and its importance in protecting many oppressed groups including women. Responsibility must be taken by those involved to take a real stand against sexism and to prevent things getting out of hand. It was all well and good for the violent threats against me to be called out, but one candle can set a mansion alight. ‘Low level’ sexism also needs to be tackled head on, not only to prevent escalation, but for its own sake.

I recount and reflect on this experience not for pity, but as a plea to exercise awareness and caution in the language often directed at women.. I don’t expect to enter a world of politics where I won’t be shouted down from time to time or jeered or put down. I simply want to enter one where I can expect to meet these as frequently as my male counterparts do, and none of them to be on the basis of gender.

Listen to women, rather than dismissing them. Question the language that you and others use and when people call you out, listen to their justifications. One of the most powerful things is support; to be supported and to support others is vital when it comes to tackling sexism. To the strangers and friends who support me when I speak out against injustice, I am grateful. Calling out little things, liking a comment, complimenting a friend, sharing an article, signing a petition. These are all little things we can do on the internet to support each other in the cause for gender equality.

Meritocracy: a nice idea…

In a liberal state that strives for equality, meritocracy, or rather the gaining of something based on merit, rather than other factors, has become a core principle on which we aim to base our society. If we disregard gender, class, race, ethnicity and background from any job or university application, then in theory we should have people in jobs and universities who have been employed on merit alone. However, this is not the case. Meritocracy simply does not work.

 There are several arguments associated with the flaws of meritocracy including race and gender, however in this article I will be discussing meritocracy in relation to class and wealth in the UK.

 Let us start with education, at the beginning of any determining of merit, at the age of 11. Children have the opportunity to sit the 11+ exam to determine their ability to go to a grammar school which will facilitate a learning environment in which their academic talents will flourish. We see this as the beginning in education. This is a flaw. By the age of 11, a child will have had experiences and opportunities (or lack thereof) which will determine the outcome of a test like the 11+. They might not have  parents who read to them at night or take them on cultural visits. They might have been in a primary school with low level disruption, or incompetent teachers, or even teachers without the adequate classroom resources to teach the lessons they wish they could. Their parents might not encourage them to take the 11+, might not know much about it, or they simply might live too far away from a grammar school as many are situated in privileged areas. The list continues. And so, all too frequently, those with privilege get into grammar schools and not just those with natural abilities, passions or talents.

 Moving on to schooling. Now of course the disparities between private, grammar and comprehensive education are clear in terms of the opportunities to children. But we must remember that it is not even simply the standard of education received itself which can impair the outcomes of children in education. Equal opportunities does not mean equal outcomes. For example, if you live in an overcrowded home then it might be difficult to complete homework at night. A child might not have the right nutrition to concentrate and learn to the best of their ability. 1/3 children in the UK live in poverty and so both of these factors are real issues that British society must face up to.

 And so we come to the point at which the principle of meritocracy, this ever strived for goal, comes into practice. From 16 onwards, people begin to apply to colleges, universities and jobs. In a competitive economy, in theory, the best person for the job should be selected. This will ensure the best outcomes for any organisation, company or academic institute. These privileged groups in society, mainly white, almost always the educated class and often men continue to get the higher positions in organisations and companies or places at the most elite universities. There are of course schemes such as the Sutton Trust which help those from underprivileged backgrounds into top Universities, but many slip through the net. There needs to be a change in mind set, rather than a few gestures to give some, rather than all a chance. We forget that there are many privileges which will have already put certain groups ahead of others in the running. How can meritocracy really be fair, if the merits have been unfairly distributed in the first place?

 It could be argued that, unfortunately, because we must compete in a globalised world then we should just continue to choose those people simply because they have had better outcomes. But simply because on a piece of paper an potential candidate looks like they have more merit, it does not mean we should hire them or give them a place at a university.

 Research has shown that state school students when studying the same degree at the same institution will often outperform their independent school counterparts by up to seven degree points, perhaps something to do with the fact that state school students often have to overcome many challenges within a somewhat lacking education system and are often left to their independent motivation. Working on the basis of meritocracy in the instance of university clearly does not always give the best outcomes. Yet people from private schools continue to take up a disproportionate amount of places at top universities, with Oxbridge taking almost 50% whereas only 7% of the population go to private schools. Simply because you have a better set of grades on your UCAS form does not necessarily give a true reflection of drive, competency, work ethic, passion, or even intellect. Although universities claim to take other factors into account, especially with those from the most underprivileged backgrounds, places continue to go to the most privileged.

 Politics and in particular parliament is one of the most powerful spaces for change, for creating social and public policy that works for the whole population, not just the few at the top. Russell Brand once commented on how the UK political system is essentially created for privately educated students to enter, simply going from one oak panelled hall at their private school, to one at Oxbridge, before ending up in the oak panelled House of Commons. Is it any wonder that almost 1/3 of our MPs and half of the new cabinet are privately educated? Most offered an outstanding education, extra curricular activities such as debating society and MUN, they are in training to be in positions of power from when they first enter school.

 We are a country facing countless problems, but many of these problems are faced by particular groups in society which don’t have a real voice. The MPs in parliament are not the people going to food banks, applying for benefits or worrying about being homeless. These are often the people who the principle of meritocracy lets down, rendering them voiceless in parliament. Of course, activism in the forms of social media and the real free press does offer real people a voice, but in terms of legislative and decision making powers, these lie in the hands of those who rarely have experience of the chaotic lives that many in the UK are living right now. Whilst a “working class quota” is not realistically something that could be put into practice, there needs to be a real effort to get people who truly represent working people into parliament, as opposed to those who have had expensive public speaking tuition and a degree in PPE.

In the job market, and in day to day life, people are employed based on their qualifications and experience, as well as how they come across in person; based on merit. But how about we start to think about things a little differently. How good someone will really be in a position really is not necessarily about how they appear on the surface. Dig a little deeper and the person who seems to be less qualified might really have worked harder, had more talent, more drive, but just been dealt a worse card in life. We need to start questioning what we really class as merit, or we are doomed to put the same sorts of people in the same jobs for the rest of eternity…and that would just be boring.