If you ask me if I'm a 'feminist', I'd say yes. However, firstly I would feel obliged to clarify the meaning of this question with the person asking it, as I think the word 'feminism' is somewhat misleading to what the word really defines. I would say yes to this question, I'd say yes with hesitation though, it would take a few moments of thought and thorough consideration too. My congenital intuition and culturally ingrained instinct to act with masculinity and avoid sounding 'soft' or 'wet' would stop me from answering this question.
My will to sound masculine as a 20 year-old heterosexual male would almost impede me from openly saying 'Yes, I am a feminist'. Am I an advocate for 'women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes'? Well yeah, of course I am, it benefits people I love like my Mum, Sister, Aunties, Grandmother etc! Although true and simply a natural reaction to such a question, it is myopic to suggest feminism is solely beneficial to Women. I believe patriarchal governments and media outlets (such as The Sun) are regressive evolutionarily and socially for Males and Females alike. I think my young brothers would benefit mentally from not having the degradation and objectifying of young women on online porn and page three of The Sun shoved in there innocent, cherubic faces. The same way I think young Females would benefit mentally and socially from not feeling as though they need to achieve 'body goals' by looking as much like Beyonce and as little like themselves as possible. Anyway the point of this (almost) succinct piece is to pertinently emphasise my belief that the word 'Feminism' is an impediment to gender equality. My reasoning behind this comes from my own aforementioned hesitation to admit that I am a feminist, I can't help but think other young men like myself would be put off of this righteous idea by the effeminate nature of the term 'feminism'. The term itself could be as equally misleading to young teenage females as it could be for the young teenage males, could it perhaps lead young naive men and women into thinking it means the superiority of females? Could this word potentially breed chauvinists of both sexes, making men objective to the term and women stronger proponents of a word neither sex truly understands? Could this word subconsciously encourage the rise of FEMale chauvINISTS and encourage Male opposition to this. My point is; I strongly support the equality of men and women but I believe we could use a word more relevant to the definition of 'feminism' and with less of a pernicious effect to the progression of equality intended by those who champion it. So is a word that encourages young men to object to it's definition on the grounds of their own insecurity useful to us? Is it useful to breed Male chauvinists and Female chauvinists with a word that misleads them. Let's not redefine Feminism; Feminism by definition is a beautiful concept. It's misleading terminology is progressive for our negative, atavistic aspects and regressive for true gender equality, in my opinion. - Written by Floyd Smith (Twitter: @effstream.)
0 Comments
As the Conservative won the elections last year, it had raised a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain a member of the European Union. The vote is presumed to be held before June 23rd 2016, and could potentially open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ leading to the collapse of the European project. David Cameron has since tried to negotiate relationships between the UK and EU, and has vowed to keep Britain in this Union. However, members of his own cabinet will go against him to vote out of the EU. Whilst tackling this subject and giving you reasons as to why we should not leave, I will be breaking it down in social and economic/political factors.
Most people that say “leave the EU,” never really explain what they mean, they tend to portray an unrealistic view that ‘everything will come together and be perfect.’ Yet, one must remember, a politician (namely Nigel Farage,) that is trying to sell an idea never gives all the details. So, what is UKIP actually proposing? Many of the optimistic scenarios, (my favourite one being, “no immigrants or migration!” Which majority of the people who are oppose to the stay uses,) is not guaranteed, nor is it credible. Take the migration example; there is no evidence to the remark made by Nigel Farage. Under his suggested system, there will be no restriction on EU members coming into the UK (EU family members, workers, students, they will all have the right to live in the UK.) Pro-EU campaigner Mr McGrory said: "Right now, Britain has the best of both worlds. We have an opt-out from the passport-free Schengen area, while still enjoying full access to the single market. The Leave campaigns haven't produced a shred of evidence to show how they could guarantee a deal that is at least as good if we left.” The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford said if it became harder for employers to recruit EU workers they may try to bring in more migrants from outside Europe. So, unfortunately for those that are relying on the leave to get rid of immigrants, there is likely to be an increase. But what happens to peace and democracy? The EU has secured peace among past warring Western European countries, it has helped consolidate democracy in Spain, Portugal, Greece and previous Soviet bloc countries and has safeguarded peace in the Balkans since the end of the war. Thus, in regards to security, in a letter released by No 10, military figures including, Lord Bramall and Jock Stirrup (chiefs of defence staff,) contend that the EU is an "increasingly important pillar of our security", especially at a time of instability in the Middle East and in the face of "resurgent Russian nationalism and aggression". Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has likewise said the UK benefits from being part Europe, in addition to Nato and the United Nations. "It is through the EU that you exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism," he said. "We need the collective weight of the EU when you are dealing with Russian aggression or terrorism." The irony really is that, the same people that are constantly arguing about the protection from IS and other extremist groups are the same people who want to leave. Looking at sovereignty the question really remains on whether the UK will truly be sovereign despite the possibilities of leaving the EU, and as indicated by our cabinet minister, that is just an ‘illusion.’ “Of course there are those who would like Britain to have – not simply the illusion, but the fact – of being a self-governing nation again, where our parliament and courts are absolutely supreme again,” Michael Fallon told BBC Radio 4’s programme. The real question is, where is the evidence that the UK will ever go back to a complete sovereign country? Surely this implies the Monarch must regain all of her power, which evidently is diminishing, and the greater part of the power is within the legislature (Parliament;) thus implying that the EU does not impact the sovereignty of Britain. Naturally, this means sovereignty really has nothing to do with the EU. Despite joining the EU, it did not put a strain on sovereignty as much as people think it had; for instance, section 2 of the European Communities Act 1973, explains that although EU law is supreme, sovereignty still lies in Queen and parliament (Lord Denning in Macarathies case.) Fallon later explains that “if we got back to the ‘golden age’ where our parliament is absolutely sovereign, you would still have the European Union next door, taking decisions that affect our trade and businesses and our way of life.” This swiftly moves us onto the economic impacts of leaving the EU. One of the biggest advantages of the EU is free trade between member nations, making it easier and cheaper for British companies to export their goods to Europe. Business leaders think the boost to income outweighs the billions of pounds in membership fees Britain would save if it left the EU. The UK also risks losing some of its negotiation power internationally by leaving the trading bloc[1]. To make it simple:
That was just on a macro level, in regards to micro, one must look at the individuals living in the UK, who are depending on the EU and the economic impacts on them. Around 3.5 million British jobs are directly linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market (that’s 1 in 10 British jobs!) Now lets focus on all of those students who aspire to work abroad, and those that already are; free movement of people across the EU opens up job opportunities for UK workers willing to travel. It also makes it relatively easy for UK companies to employ workers from other EU countries. Ukip says this prevents the UK "managing its own borders". But, writing for the LSE, Professor Adrian Favell says limiting this freedom would deter the "brightest and the best" of the continent from coming to Britain, create complex new immigration controls and reduce the pool of candidates employers can choose from, (who knows we may even lose out on the person who can cure cancer!) Still focusing on the individual, what happens to the prices of all of those veggies and other food you expect to buy from the supermarket? David Cameron said fresh analysis from the Treasury proposes the estimation of the pound could fall by 12% after a vote to leave the Brussels club. Such a decrease in the benefit of sterling would increase the cost of food imports and include more than £220 a year to the expense of food for a family of four within only two years[2]. The real question is, do you have a real reason as oppose to ‘immigration,’ to be paying an extra £220 a year? There are thousands of reasons with reference to why we ought not leave and how it would open up a Pandora’s box, and additionally making a contrary domino effect; equally, there are individuals who will give you reasons as to why we should leave. As always, these are my strong opinions, which are unmistakably predisposition; I believe the reasons to stay outweigh the reasons to leave. Something for you to consider on is whether Britain truly will be more grounded and sovereign if we leave; as indicated by The Economist Britain would still be liable to the political issues and economic aspects of Europe, but would no longer have a seat at the table to try to influence matters. - (Twitter: @JUUUKES.) [1] http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603306/Family-food-bill-soar-220-year-quit-EU-warns-David-Cameron-high-street-bosses-warn-catastrophic-consequences-Brexit.html |