Meghan Trainor's Eating Disorder speech.

Okay so this happened weeks ago but I've only just read up on it properly, and quite frankly I am disgusted. Meghan Trainor sat in an interview talking about eating disorders, after her new song "all about that base" was released. I loved this song, a lot actually, thinking it was representing curvy girls finally telling them it isn't wrong to be a little bit bigger. FINALLY someone showing the other side, and although the use of the lyrics "skinny bitches" and making slim people feel inferior, the song was actually something so many girls could relate to and had a real feel good feeling about it. A song that should have been influential, and made girls realise there is more to your self worth than your weight. Obviously, critics said it could be damaging to girls by saying boys only like curvy girls, but in my opinion it was something revolutionary in its own way and should be welcomed with open arms. And then she went that step too far when she said this:

“I wasn’t strong enough to have an eating disorder…I tried to go anorexic for a good three hours. I ate ice and celery, but that’s not even anorexic. And I quit. I was like, ‘Ma, can you make me a sandwich? Like, immediately,”

Really Meghan?! "Strong enough" for an eating disorder? Using the term "Skinny bitches" caused enough controversy but I looked past it when I thought that it was okay because people slate fat people all the time, and maybe, just maybe, it's okay that one song made the tables turn. This, however, was just a step too far for me. Eating disorders are real illnesses, people make themselves really critically ill and some even die from it. Would she be not strong enough to have cancer either? Because lets face it, they're both illnesses at the end of the day. Psychological based illness are even worse, in my opinion, because you just cannot stop. Young girls, boys, women, men, so many people struggle their whole lives battling with food and their weight and it's not something you can change. If you have an eating disorder, you have to be ultimately as strong as you'll ever be to over come it. To eat when the voices in your head are talking you down not to, to stop yourself being sick when everything in your body is telling you that you have to. 

Thin people, curvy people, anyone can be a victim of an eating disorder. A good diet and fitness regime, that takes strength to stick to and you have to be a very determined person to keep that balance perfect through your life to remain healthy and slim. But an eating disorder, that doesn't take strength, in fact it makes you feel like the weakest person in the world. Giving into pressure from peers, from voices in your head, it's scary and possibly the hardest feeling in the world to escape. Strength comes from making a change, weakness is giving in, and there's nothing worse than feeling weak, vulnerable and insecure

Demi Lovato summed all this up perfectly in her response to Meghan:

 "Having an eating disorder doesn’t show “strength.” Strength is when are able to overcome your demons after being sick and tired for so long. There’s a wide misconception that anorexia and/or bulimia is a choice and you often hear people say things like ‘why doesn’t she just start eating?’ Or even ‘just stop throwing up.’ It’s the ignorance and lack of education on mental illnesses that continues to but mental health care on the back burner to congress even though this is an epidemic that is sweeping our nation, and causing more and more tragedy every day. Starving is not a ‘diet’ and throwing up isn’t something that only extremely thin men or women do. Eating disorders do not discriminate..Neither does any other mental illness. These are deadly diseases that are taking lives daily. So please, let’s be cautious of the words we use when discussing ED’s and other mental illnesses. <3"

People really are so ignorant to eating disorders, how they make people feel and how dangerous they really are. Making comments like Meghan did is not only ignorant but it's unfair and rude. She's never experienced it, and it most certainly is not something to make a joke about whether you have or have not. Addictions of all descriptions from alcoholism to drug habits, to depression and anxiety are all psychological illnesses which people, no matter how hard they try cannot escape. Robin Williams tragic passing after battling with depression caused an uproar of awareness, and now it's passed nobody seems to take it seriously anymore. It shouldn't take people dying and tragedies to make people realise that psychological illnesses are killers and should not, ever, be jokes about.

Meghan may have only been making a joke, but it is comments like hers which are destroying young girls self-esteems. A girl with an eating disorder hearing someone call them strong for doing it is only encouraging it! The sooner people realise how dangerous 'jokes' like this are, the better. We should all be working together to eliminate young girls feeling this way, not making jokes in passing about the people who are struggling the most.  So please, lets support these girls, not make it any harder for them until it is. Lets destroy eating disorders and never again make girls think they aren't good enough.

Has feminism gone too far?

I would never go as far as to call myself a feminist, however I am a woman and therefore it would be wrong for me to put down all the hard work feminists have done for us over the years. So many laws in place now to make men and woman equal and it's lovely to see, even though The Guardian has suggested women are still earning 35% less than men. Nonetheless, there have been many advance in the last one hundred years promoting equal rights all around the world that shouldn't be forgotten.

However, I have to be honest, this new post-feminism stage we are currently getting ourselves into I am not a massive fan of. Equal rights is great, but trying to make women better than men is just going backwards, in my opinion. Many women are actually making us look bad through their attempts to make us look better. How can one thing be wrong for a man and right for a woman and visa-versa? Coleen Nolan made it into 'The Mirror' this week (http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/coleen-nolan-i-listened-son-4979875) by letting the world know she was 'dead impressed' after listening to her son have sex?! Sorry, what?! This is not normal, Coleen! If a man were to do this he would probably be classed a pedophile or told that it was invading women's privacy. There would be uproar, not a funny, lighthearted article. It is these women who are causing issues, stating that they would 'like a piece of him' about every man they swoon over no matter how many years older/younger they might be, for the sake of daytime television.. Men would be slated, and if society is to be equal then women should be, too.

Of course, it is still frustrating that men get paid more and we can't do anything about it, that men get away with having 'causal sex' more whilst women are branded 'sluts' and whores'. Rape is still currently being blamed on the women 'flaunting' themselves and 'dressing provocatively' instead of the men committing the crime, and women's body parts still have to be fully covered while men can roam free? I mean, seriously, what's with this whole nipple thing?! Does a star over a nipple on a woman really 'protect' whats underneath? Surely if a woman is posting a picture of herself, she has a right to show as much or as little as she desires, if we're being sexually equally, hmm i'm just saying...

Anyway, I went onto a bit of a feminist rant there unknowingly so back to my point: post-feminism, the desire for women to be better than men and have more rights. Just no. I in no way support this, 0% of me thinks this is a good idea nor is it good for society. I understand that in the past women had no rights, to vote, for equal pay, even for the same jobs as men. But now, they want to 'fight back' by making themselves continuously better until (as I read on a feminist forum the other day) men are, and I quote, "nothing but sperm donors" and reduced to just 10% of the population.

This is absurd! How can you just start depopulating the world of men simply for feminist 'rights'?! No, this is NOT OKAY. How is it fair that just because women were oppressed in the past, now women are finally becoming equal they get to, literally, take over the world. It is a known fact, no matter how you try to change it, that men are physically born stronger than women. I am in no way saying that makes them better, however I am saying this makes them PHYSICALLY BUILT better for certain jobs, so i'm sorry ladies, but yes, we do need them (sometimes).

Furthermore, does this mean that because homosexuals used to be killed off as 'unnatural' or imprisoned for their behaviour that now we should probably depopulate the earth to only 10% hetrosexuals, just so they can keep the human race going? Of course it doesn't it is ridiculous. White people used to use black people as slaves back in the day, well now we all have equal rights it's probably payback time and we should make only 10% of the population white to be used as slaves. Do you see where i'm going with this? It's absolutely outrageous that women think it is acceptable to dehumanise men as sperm donors. YOU ARE GOING BACKWARDS. Just by doing to them what they used to do to us does not make it okay. In fact, it makes it even more categorically wrong. We should be learning from the mistakes made in the past, remembering how it felt to be put in the background and concentrate on everyone having equality rather than anyone being better.

Just remember, men believe in feminism too. Plenty of men are part of feminist movements, in support for equality, not a superior gender.

j x

Charlie Hebdo Shootings

Okay, I have to admit that I began this blog post a few days ago and I never got round to finishing it, and now the link to the video I wanted to show has gone so I will just have to try my best to explain in words what I saw and how I feel.

I'm sure everybody reading this has heard about the shootings at Charlie Hebdo last week (and if you haven't, it's probably about time you stopped living in ignorance and read the news) so I won't blab on about it for two long. However, in short, due to the Prophet Mohammad being drawn on and in Charlie Hebdo, 12 people were shot dead including the editor of the magazine and two police officers, as well as up to 11 injured. This comes after the 2011 bombings, the original bombings for the original magazine cover which caused outrage in Islamic societies.

Obviously, there is more to it but that is the basis of what happened, you can read up for yourself if you are unsure. My original point, which included the video I mentioned above, was about ignorant people making ignorant videos and always having something to say relating back to governments and conspiracy theories. Why do people find it necessary to make a conspiracy theory out of everything?! The video I watched was stating that it was 'impossible' the police man died from a shot to the head or there would have been blood spattered everywhere, as well as the fact the men went to 'extreme effort to hide their identity' by wearing full masks but were apparently stupid enough to leave their identification cards in the car so the Police knew exactly who they were. The article also stated that the French Government had paid for the both the shootings and for Charlie Hebdo to publish these controversial images.

Number one, just because the Police officer did not die from direct shot to the head, why are these ignorant journalists forgetting about the other 12 people who were directly shot and had their blood horrifically splattered everywhere? Regardless of whether or not the police officer died a brutal, gory death, whether it was from impact or from a direct bullet, the point is the two men killed 12 people that day and the tiny specifics should not matter.

Number two, I can see why this would be a little suspicious that identification cards were left after they tried to escape, however it is not impossible. The men would have been rushed not only to escape but also from the adrenaline they would have been feeling after the shootings, thus suggesting their mental state would not have been sensible in any way. It is more than probable they left/dropped their identification cards during the rush, and even had they not, CCTV would have picked them up along the way so does it really matter? The french police have searched, found and killed the men and the public should be thankful for their service and for attempting to stop any further attacks.

Finally, number 3, why would the government set up for people to be killed and for civilians all over France and all around the world to be scared for their lives? It's absurd. Especially considering we are supposed to be living in a democracy in which freedom of speech is allowed. How can the government dictate what happens and how we feel if this is true. Especially when the attack has apparently been planned by Al Qaeda for a long time, since the editor of Charlie Hadbo was put on their most wanted list for his decisions to post portraits of the profit. The bombings after this took place in 2011 and nothing was heard again, until now. How could the government possibly have planned that?!

However, there are always two sides to every story and this cannot be forgotten. 

It, of course, needs to be considered why Charie Habdo felt the need to post such controversial images in this diverse and interracial society we now live in. Majority of Charlie Habdo's magazine covers are controversial religious images and therefore it could be argued that it was not a direct assault at the Islamic world. Although it may have been extremist Muslims who reacted to the controversial images, it does mean that other religions were not offended and disappointed by the images drawn by the magazine.

Should the magazine be allowed to publish them if it is going to cause such outrage in the religious world? Are the terrorists the real root of the problem or is it the magazine for posting it in the first place? Personally, I do not believe the latter: if other religious groups can deal with it calmly and efficiently, why can't these extremist muslims do the same? It is, however, definitely something to consider. Interestingly, Charlie Habdo found it necessary to 'fight' back but putting another depiction of the prophet mohammad holding a 'Je Suis Charlie' sign up. I may not agree that they are the root of the problem, but fighting fire with fire is just going to cause a bigger problem, can't people see that?

Furthermore, England has taken the decision in support of France and of Charlie Habdo, they will be publishing the most recent edition in England on Friday. This has already created terror threats and it just makes me wonder - are we causing this? Why do the british always feel the need to stick there noses in! I'm all for unity around the world but in my opinion it is simply stupity publishing something again which is causing religious discrepancies around the world. We are trying to be united with a county to make peace around the world, and yet it is simply causing more problems - how can we eventually have global unity if people are not willing to accept other cultures and religions fully. Extremist Muslims may be difficult to deal with but there are better ways to deal with them than to publish disrespectful things around the world; it makes us as bad as them.

I have also heard debates of people saying "if they are coming to OUR country they should respect OUR humour and our rules". Now, I am not saying I fully disagree with this, in some respects people should adapt to the lifestyle Britain, France, or wherever they choose to migrate to has. However, in the world we are currently living, we are attempting to become interracial and cultured. If this is the case, how can we not accept the way other people behave and suggest everyone has to be the same. It's nice having different cultures scattered around the world or we become ignorant to the world around us. Again, I am not saying I agree with extremist muslims, but ignorant people saying that ALL muslims are out to kill us all make my blood boil. As the picture shows, we don't see all Christians as the KKK so why should we see all Muslims as the extremist ISIS?!

I guess this post wasn't really controversial at all, as I have tried to look at both sides equally. However, the point I am trying to make here is this: We are under a terror threat and this is totally frightening. Living in a world where you have to be afraid of what you write or where you travel to or what you say is NOT fair. However, if we want to overcome the problem, fighting back against these people and lumping all religious persons under the same category is unfair and ridiculous. Terrorists need to be stopped, I am not for one second suggesting I know the answer as to how, but I think are actions at the moment are aggravating them instead of stopping them and making negative instead of positive change.

J.


NB found the video, follow this link. www.educateinspirechange.org/alternative-news/video-evidence-sheds-doubt-official-story-charlie-hebdo-shootings-paris/

Is it fair to anonymise rapists waiting for conviction?

The story derives from MP Mark Pritchard who was accused of raping a girl in central London late last year, and since being let go due to “insufficient evidence”, has called for a change in the law for those accused of sex offences. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that I do not empathise with people, predominately celebrities and people in the public eye, who are falsely accused and have their name questioned for something completely made up; because I do. It must be a difficult time in their lives to go through a trial like that, threatening their professional careers as well as their private lives. But where do you draw the line?

Is it fair that whilst waiting for trial, rapists have the possibility, if wealthy enough, to roam the streets? Well believe it or not, in some cases, this is happening; by making these people anonymous, it could be putting the public at risk. Whether or not this only a very minute percentage or the majority, it does not change the fact that it is unfair for women and men everywhere to be living in fear with no idea whether or not their rapist is still wandering the streets. I understand that if it is a repeat offender, this would not be able to happen, but raping someone once should be enough of a criminal offence to have your name publically shamed, anyway. There may be a small percentage of alleged offences which have no background and are possibly completely made up, but does this make it okay for the thousands of cases which are not false to leave girls and boys living in fear their attacker could strike again.

Taking into consideration it is estimated 85,000 women are raped in the UK every year, it would be unfair on the victims that justice is not being served for their attackers. It is difficult enough for the women who are attacked to come forward and admit to it after the shame and embarrassment forced upon them with no escape. Then, for them to then find out their attackers have the same rights as them for anonymity is just absurd.

As I have previously stated, I am not saying that it is therefore right for innocent people to be accused; I am simply making a point that rapists should be named and shamed. It is, of course, unfortunate that innocent people have to be dragged into this, but that small percentage should be blaming rapists for committing something so unforgivable that people live in fear, and not the law.

Interestingly, it is not necessarily that the accused have been successful in clearing their name and proved their innocence. In fact, a lot of the times, similar to MP Mark Pritchard, the cases are closed due to insignificant evidence. Who is therefore to say that this means it is untrue? I understand that the word of one person is not enough to convict someone, but how many times have rich, prestigious men managed to falsely clear their name in order to protect their reputation. Of course, we will never know the answer to this question but it is definitely something to think about.

David Lisak also created a very interesting study of a Northern University’s sexual assault encounters, which helps emphasise the point I am currently making. He proved that out of 117 cases, 52% were investigated and closed, sometimes due to insufficient evidence but often due to the complainant stopping cooperating with the investigation. Is this due to fear? Embarrassment? Disgust? Or could it be, as Mark Pritchard is basically suggesting, that the girls are just lying and therefore the accused should not be named. Personally, it’s so far from the latter that it upsets me to think of the anguish these girls must be going through. Again, I am not saying that some girls do not lie, but after history making it socially unacceptable for girls to admit to rape and being called liars for hundreds of years, it is no wonder that girls, and boys, act out in such a way when concerning rape.

Overall, my answer in short would be no: accused sex offenders should not be given anonymity. Why should someone accused of rape have the right to anonymity until they are trialled, whilst we live in such a corrupt society of hegemony? I understand the statement ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but the ruling classes are getting away with everything and anything simply because they have power. In other cases, police officers are getting away with murder, the literal kind not the metaphorical kind, and high end journalists are getting away with invading people’s privacy. If innocent people like the McCann’s, and the numerous celebrities whose lives were ruined by the phone hacking scandals, are being conveyed to the world in a false and unfair way against their will, why should possible rapists have their right to anonymity?