On the importance of voting

Today is the day of the European Parliament Elections across the EU, and if you're in the UK (England & Norther Ireland) it's also the day of your local council elections. 

To vote is a democratic right, and one that should not be squandered. We are lucky to live in a country (and under a supranational political entity) which acknowledges and upholds our right to vote. Some are not so lucky. 

But on the flip side, to vote is a democratic duty as citizens. Our institutions cannot function legitimately if the people they represent do not have much of a say in their composition. At the last European Parliament election in 2009, turnout across the continent was a mere 43% (x). That means that less than half of the people who live under the rules and regulations of the EU actually had a say in the composition of the legislative body that makes those rules and regulations, and that is clearly a problem. It means that those of us who have not voted are represented by officials we may not have wanted representing us. That is a democratic deficit if ever I saw one. 

The UK, we all know, has never been the biggest Europe Fangirl, if you will. Thus it should come as no surprise that in the 2009 EP elections, voter turnout in this country was only 34.7%  (x). Who cares, right? Who cares what Europe does? The UK hates Europe. We want a referendum anyway, we want out. Screw Europe and their elections, right? 

No. It is hugely important. There is some controversy around the amount of legislation that originates in Brussels. UKIP says 70%, the Liberal Democrats 7%. The figure is more likely 14% (x|x). But the quantity of legislation from Europe, large or small, is somewhat irrelevant. The fact that any legislation comes from Europe, from an elected assembly, means that it is imperative as many people as possible have a say in the election representatives who make that legislation. 

Poor voter turnout and political apathy are just as much enemies of democracy as the harsh fist of a totalitarian regime, if only covert ones. 

Perhaps a little more crucially,  it is  especially important for those of us in the United Kingdom, at this time more than any other, to exercise our right and duty to vote. Without casting too much of a personal opinion on my urging, we are threatened at this time by an internal enemy. By UKIP, who would seek to remove us from a union that upholds our prosperity. Who would seek to repeal the legislation that upholds our fundamental human rights. Who would seek to disallow equality of marriage. Who would seek to uphold and further entrench existing racial and ethnic prejudices that are not only harmful to those who are discriminated against, but also to the very fabric of our society. They claim to speak for “English liberty”, but they misunderstand the concept entirely. English liberty is rooted in the notion of freedom, toleration and equality. Principles which are contrary to UKIP’s position. The only way that we can fight against this hateful party is to vote. To quote George Jean Nathan: “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote”.

Voting is our saving grace. Voting is the weapon the citizen wields against ignorance and despotism. As Abraham Lincoln once said: "Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets". It is with a simple cross in a box that we can save ourselves from the likes of UKIP. 

However, if you are a UKIP supporter, you can rightfully turn my arguments against me. "Vote for us", you might say, "to fight against the ignorance of the establishment and the mainstream parties". I wholeheartedly disagree, but you are entitled to that opinion. That is the somewhat frustrating beauty of democratic society. 

The point is that whatever your inclination, you should vote. You should have your voice heard. It is your right, and it is your duty. 

Body Image and "Macho" Culture: Why Men Need Feminism Too

Feminism is defined as 'the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes'. The misconception is that this is a movement just for women, that its sole concern is advancing the marginalised position of women in a "man's world". You wouldn't be entirely wrong, but the simple fact is that patriarchal social structures effect both men and women in society. As such, both sexes need feminism to repeal these structures so that they are truly equal and free.  

Patriarchy literally means "rule of the father". It implies explicitly that men are superior to women: men rule, women serve. This has further fuelled the idea that men and women are intrinsically, biologically different to one another; that the sexes are awarded different traits along with different genitalia. In this view, our gender is predetermined: masculine traits belong solely to men and vice versa. Such a notion has not only shaped all of human history--depicting men as "natural" leaders with strength and wisdom, demeaning women as weak, foolish, and over-emotional--it has also shaped the social and political structures in which we live today. But these notions are not only wrong: they're damaging to men and women alike.

The most obvious way in which these notions harm society is in the pressures they put on young men and women to conform to certain behavioural norms and, increasingly, body archetypes. It gives us a strict criteria to which we must adhere in order to be "normal", or indeed "perfect", men and women.

We're all well affiliated with the pressures put on young women by the mainstream media and society at large. We bombard girls with fake, photoshopped images of unattainable female bodies; we then apply an unhealthy rhetoric encouraging women to lose weight, look sexy and please their man (I nod blatantly and disdainfully to the "Trends Men Hate" phenomenon that has recently circulated the Internet). The result is quite disturbing: a generation of image-obsessed girls, trying to fit these impossible benchmarks. Just to illustrate the point, the Health & Social Care Information Centre in the UK reported in January 2014 that young women, around the age of 15, made up 91% of hospital admissions as a result of eating disorders.

Less often considered is the harmful effect that the same pressures have on young men. A few days ago TIME magazine posted an interesting article which highlighted similar health issues amongst men caused by the promotion of a "perfect" body archetype in the mainstream media.

Let us take a minute to reflect on the findings: increased depression amongst young males, high-risk behaviours (such as substance abuses), eating disorders, obsessive work-out routines, and the use of steroids, which can also have psychological effects. Though young boys make up only 9% of the overall admissions to hospital as a result of eating disorders, as reported by the HSCIC, they still contribute to a rise of 8% in such admissions since 2012. A further point of interest, as TIME notes, is that 18% of boys are worried about their weight: 15% are concerned with thinness and 50% are concerned with muscularity. So whilst young women arguably have a worse experience regarding these societal pressures, they affect young men too. 

The trickiness of addressing these issues is that the pressures that young men face are often not noticed or brushed aside, and this is because of the extent to which gender norms are entrenched within our society. "Machismo", defined as strong or aggressive masculine pride, is prominent in the media but also in regular social situations. Young men are aggrieved by the need to prove themselves as masculine or face ridicule; to show emotion is considered negatively "feminine". In a recent article for the BBC, Johnny Benjamin (notable for his 'Find Mike' campaign, searching for the stranger who stopped him from committing suicide in 2008) highlights that three times as many men as women commit suicide every year, and places the blame squarely on society's habit of forcing men to conform to an unnatural image of robust emotionlessness: 'Perhaps we need to redefine the meaning of masculinity, stop telling males to "man up", and start showing them that grown men do actually cry.' I quite agree, and I would suggest that feminism is the answer. 

It is generally agreed within feminist theory (and I say that somewhat tentatively, not wishing to white-wash feminist theorists) that there is a clear distinction between sex and gender. Sex refers explicitly to unchangeable biological differences, for example the ability for women to become pregnant or men to produce semen. Gender, however, is purely a cultural term. Society ascribes different social roles to men and women, citing biology as the reason, but there's no logical basis for this assumption (Heywood, 2007). To quote Simone de Beauvoir, 'one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman' (Beauvoir, 1973:301). To distinguish between the two is to disallow the attribution of values or social functions to women and men alike purely on the basis of their sex, nor is it possible to 'refer meaningfully to natural or unnatural gendered behaviour: all gender is, by definition, unnatural' (Butler, 1986). In this way, feminism frees both sexes from the yoke of a gender-normative obsessed society. 

Indeed, there is a concerted effort to rebut these pressures with regard to young women. In a lot of instances these efforts take place on the Internet within a wide array of social media and other sources. But they also exist in the mainstream domain, where the aforementioned cultural norms are typically enforced rather than rebutted.  Take, for example, UK department store Debenhams' 'diversity in fashion' campaign which 'turns its back on the industry norm of young thin models' by including a variety of body types in their catalogues, including a size 18 swimsuit model, a Paralympic athlete and a 70 year old female model. The push back is slow and arduous, but social change always is. The point is that it is happening. 

However, the rebuttal for men under the same pressures is virtually non-existent. Perhaps it is because we do simply say "man up" to our young men. Even when the media tries to redefine the gender roles forced onto women by creating a "strong" female character, it tends to do this by making her typically masculine. This suggests that the only way women can be free of their assigned gender role is to be like a man, and it is a regressive ploy because it further entrenches the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity; it implies to men and women alike that to display typically feminine traits is bad, and so the cycle in which both, but particularly men, are forced to conform continues. 

What is needed, therefore, is a further emphasis that it is perfectly ordinary for both men and women to exhibit traditionally feminine traits. That it's okay to express emotion. Perhaps the answer is to promote androgyny (the possession of both masculine and feminine characteristics) as a normal human condition. But whichever way such a goal can be achieved, whether it be through the media or grassroots awareness-raising, feminism is the primary vehicle for achieving it because it is the only social and political movement that allows us to entertain such a notion. 

Sources

BBC News. (2014). Is macho culture causing young men to take their own lives? Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26543095 (Accessed: 14th March 2014).

Butler, J. (1986). "Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex", Yale French Studies, 72, pp. 35-49.

De Beauvoir, S. (1973). The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books.

Debenhams Blog. (2014). Debenhams shows diversity in fashion. Available at: http://blog.debenhams.com/debenhams-shows-diversity-in-fashion/fashion/ (Accessed: 11th March 2014).

Dockterman, E; TIME. (2014). How movies like "300" are warping the self image of boys and men. Available at: http://time.com/19908/300-rise-of-an-empire-has-men-feeling-body-image-pressure/ (Accessed: 11th March 2014).

Health and Social Care Information Centre. (2014). Provisional Monthly Topic of Interest: Eating Disorders. Available at: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB13478/prov-mont-hes-admi-outp-ae-April%202013%20to%20October%202013-toi-rep.pdf (Accessed: 11th March 2014). 

Heywood, A. (2007). Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 4th Edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

A Contradiction of Words.

I thought it prudent that, in starting a new blog, one should say a brief "hello" to begin. I figured a good place to start would be to tell you a little about myself and why I am here, in my room, typing into the blogosphere this very second. 

My name is George. I'm British. I study BSc Politics at the University of Surrey in Guildford. 

I read quite a lot (aided, perhaps, by the 50% discount that comes as a perk of being a Waterstones Bookseller), and I like to think I read widely. I'm fascinated especially by history and political philosophy, and I like to read highfalutin literary monstrosities when I can, but I have a soft spot for the odd trashy work of fiction now and again (don't we all?). 

I'm no newbie to the "blogging" scene: I started an awkward, vaguely horrific blog in 2009 about my holiday to the US. All very quaint, I suppose, but of what interest was my 14-year-old foreign expeditions to anyone? (The answer is none whatsoever.) 

So why start another blog? I think a lot, perhaps because I read a lot and study avidly. But those thoughts need to go somewhere, or else I should spontaneously combust in a flurry of stifled, opinionated rants. 
More than that, however, is the fact that a coherent blog is the only worthwhile way of cataloguing and expressing such thoughts. I confess that I do run a Tumblr "blog" if you can call it that. Certainly the big T is a great place to express creativity, to build self-esteem and foster global friendships; but Tumblr is not really an appropriate arena for expressing opinions. Truth be told, the Tumblr community is often vindictive, intolerant and frighteningly zealous when it comes to opinions that don't match a particular criteria of moral or political correctness. As such, it is not my desire to express the serious thoughts I harbour in any coherent way on Tumblr exclusively. Thus I am here, with a "real blog", like an émigré of the French Revolution. 

Given my interests, I envision that I will be writing frequently about politics and social issues. But really this is a space reserved for thoughts about anything and everything that piques my interest enough for me to want to write about it. 

I do not profess to be an expert on anything I post. I am, after all, a mere undergraduate. I've been told by many that I speak well and that my perspective interesting and worthwhile, and I hope that you will think the same (if anyone actually bothers to read this, at least). 

To round off, I will take the liberty of explaining the title of this blog. "A contradiction of words?" That doesn't bode well for a blogger who wants to lay out his thoughts coherently, I agree. This is actually a quote taken from Jean-Jaques Rousseau, one of the philosophes of the 18th Century Enlightenment. In his most famous work, The Social Contract (1762), in a footnote, Rousseau remarks at a confusing point in his narrative, "Please, attentive reader, do not hasten to accuse me of contradiction. I cannot avoid a contradiction of words, because of the poverty of language." 

I think it a fitting appellation, for as we grow, and our minds do, our opinions and thoughts grow and change, too. Consider this, then, not a contradiction of words and thoughts, but merely the expressions of a progressing mind prevented, by the poverty of language, from expressing oneself with utter perfection. 

I look forward to writing for you!