Meg_Stalham

TL;DR- Decolonising the curriculum is definitely something that needs to be done in schools. Schools, colleges and universities should be places of learning and growing, and with a one-sided curriculum this cannot happen as so many people are left out.

During a discussion on the BBC, a student stated: ["in Year 8… my teacher started the lesson by proclaiming that slavery has nothing to do with race. I remember feeling so angry"] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/z7g66v4), while another said "my parents had taught me stuff about my own heritage, so when I saw it being actively absent in the classroom, it made me feel like I was absent in history itself".

This is not how school should be, as everyone deserves a chance to learn about their own heritage, there is no excuse to prioritise white heritage and education over non-white history. Many people argue that it's hard to fit it all into the short space of a curriculum, but if there's time to include entire school terms/semesters on relatively small events such as the Great Fire of London and Henry VIII's six wives, then the curriculum could easily be made more inclusive, by simply switching out modules.

[Doug Stokes, a lecturer at the University of Exeter, has claimed that calls to decolonise the curriculum are “a big mistake” since “the last thing our universities need are to have ‘male, pale and stale’ voices sidelined."] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/academics-its-time-to-get-behind-decolonising-the-curriculum)

But this makes no sense- why are people suddenly so worried about white male voices being 'marginalised' when no-one batted an eye when non-white voices were (and still are) talked over, plagiarised, and ignored? Because of the white supremacy unfortunately ingrained in society. The colonial curriculum has always put white westerners at the centre, whilst disregarding those who weren't 'the victors', and this needs to change in order for fairness to exist.

Anyway, decolonising the curriculum isn't even about sidelining white men, its about diversification, making room for everyone, and letting all voices be heard- what could anybody have against that?

TL; DR- I do love roast dinners, but they are definitely overrated; they're more effort to make than they're worth, and at the end of the day they are just a bunch of medieval-style vegetables and a piece of meat on a plate.

I have made a roast dinner exactly twice in my life, and they both turned out surprisingly okay. But for all the time and effort and ingredients they took, I don't think I'll be making many more for myself. I'm sure lots of people have the same experience: you're in the middle of a roast dinner and think 'I could have made something much nicer than this in fifteen minutes'.

The roast is one of the classic 'do you really like it, or have you just been told that you should like it, and you're now lying to yourself' dishes. Like Greggs and Colin the Caterpillar cakes, the roast dinner is only so widely venerated across Britain because it's traditional, because 'everyone' likes it. If the roast dinner was a new Instagram trend, and wasn't traditional, it would probably be very short-lived and wouldn't fly like it does now.

Every roast looks the same anyway, no matter how special and well-cooked the roast is, it still consists of pretty much the same ingredients and is by no stretch of the imagination an exciting and versatile dish. If you order it at a pub, there won't be any surprises and you'll know exactly what your dinner is going to look like. A spoonful of cranberry sauce on your roast would probably be the most shocking surprise.

The hype surrounding roast potatoes is understandable, but that's about it. However comforting it may be, the roast dinner is not worthy of all the love and praise it gets.

TL;DR- In theory, I think that 'pay as you throw' schemes sound like a great idea, however, in practice they may prove to be a problem as so many people just cannot afford to live sustainably. Instead of individual waste, we should focus on making big companies green.

It can be very tricky to live a sustainable and zero-waste lifestyle if you're not considerably rich. This is because of zero-waste products costing a lot more than their disposable counterparts, and whole-food shops with all-sustainably packaged groceries being generally much more expensive than Lidl. In fact, the cheapest foods usually come in plastic packaging (i.e. instant ramen, bread, and digestives) and this is not the fault of the consumer, especially if that's all they can afford.

If a PAYT scheme was introduced everywhere, many already struggling families would have that extra financial burden. Therfore, it just isn't the right solution to landfill, sea plastic, etc. Instead, we need to turn our attention to how large, billion-dollar corporations can reduce their waste.

Around [71% of the world's emissions are produced by just 100 companies] (https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change), and 4 big companies alone produce 6 million tons of plastic every year. Focusing on making big companies like these green will have a much bigger positive impact on the environment.

TL;DR- The Mario franchise used to be good, but I think it's been dragged out for way too long now, and as a result has lost it's novelty. However, one part of the Mario universe is still fun and I think it will stay a popular classic for a long while yet- Mario Kart!

The world of Super Mario has been going strong since the '80s, and in 2021, Nintendo announced a new Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury for the Switch, as well as another Mario golf game.

While many people may be excited about these new games, I can't help but feel as if they've been done before, and are getting quite repetitive. The whole 3D World segment of the Mario universe was never that exciting to begin with as it was pretty similar to 2D Mario games (with same old mushrooms and coins and Princess Peach getting kidnapped by Bowser over and over...). The 3D trend as a whole was a little short lived anyway, with the Nintendo 3DS, which then became a 2DS as people tended to prefer games without any 3D effects.

Mario playing golf is also nothing new, with him and his friends having featured in many sport-related Mario games before, such as the Mario and Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games, and Mario Tennis, along with so, so many more- at least over 20.

The Mario Kart part of the Mario franchise, on the other hand, is timeless- it's so well known and so many people have played it. It doesn't get constantly rebooted (although has been a few times just to catch up with different Nintendo consoles) and is usually a go-to for groups of people wishing to play a video game together. With no levels or monsters to fight, the game can be played again and again even after you've unlocked everything, and the novelty doesn't wear off.

There's always something new when playing Mario Kart, with no two races being the same. The competitiveness is what keeps it alive and exciting, whether you're trying to beat your friends and family, gamers from all around the world, or just very frustrating computer generated tortoises. Mario Kart is by far the most exciting Mario game Nintendo have ever produced, and unlike their other Mario games, will never get dull.

As well as, Super Princess Peach on the DS, which is another criminally underrated game in the Mario franchise.

TL;DR- Capitalism is criminogenic due to the way it encourages greed and materialism, as well as it's generally exploitative nature.

Writer, Balzac, observed that rich capitalists often become rich through exploitation of the proletariat, while Friedrich Engels believed that it is [unfair as all blame is passed onto the proletariat (e.g. benefit fraud) and immunity is given to the bourgeoisie] (https://sociologysaviour.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/marxism-and-crime/) (i.e. capitalism allows the bourgeoisie to get away with said exploitation due to their power and position).

Balzac and Engels expressed these concerns many years ago. Howevr, their ideas are still very much relevant today. An example of big company exploitation would be food and beverage company, Nestlé, and their many infamous scandals (e.g. the [infant formula] (https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/nestle-california-bottled-water/) scandal, union-busting, and more recently, the water scandal in California, which sparked internet outrage).

The motivation behind Nestle's outrageous activity was money, initiating faster, more efficient production, and in short, capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is criminogenic, even while companies such as Nestlé get away with their actions.

Oh! Thanks I didn't even know this

TL;DR- I voted disagree on this, as homosexuality is completely natural. However, I've had a thought just now- many LGBTQ+ people may not feel like their sexuality is natural if they've grown up in a heteronormative society.

In some parts of the world, things are slowly changing for the better. But with years and years of lack of representation, lack of education, LGBTQ+ erasure, general homophobia, etc. many people grow up seeing heterosexuality as default, as normal, with anything else being abnormal. This is getting better in some places but is still very much the case.

Compulsory heterosexuality is a term popularised by Adrienne Rich- [in her 1980 essay Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Rich argued that heterosexuality is ingrained in individuals from birth, and thus individuals are assumed to be heterosexual until proven otherwise.] (https://www.womensrepublic.net/compulsory-heterosexuality-and-me/)

This is also why so many people don't realise that they're LGBTQ+ until later on in their lives, and then look back on their younger years and in some cases, wonder how they didn't figure it out sooner (the answer is compulsory heterosexuality and heteronormativity).

This has had an impact on the lives of many LGBTQ+ people, such as Catherine Shuttleworth, who shares her experiences through her article in Women's Republic:

["[After coming out]I still had no ‘weight off my shoulders’ as I thought would happen. I still felt like I had to conceal a lot of who I am, and I rarely spoke about women I had crushes on for about a year after I came out. Deep down, younger me was still terrified. Younger me still thought I was weird and the anomaly. There was even a period of time where I tried to ‘turn myself straight'."] (https://www.womensrepublic.net/compulsory-heterosexuality-and-me/)

So, as a society we need to stop treating 'gay' like a swear word in front of children, we need LGBTQ+ inclusion in education, in TV shows (a gay wedding in Arthur was a small but significant step forward in everyday LGBTQ+ inclusivity), we need to stop assuming, and through these small yet effective changes, less LGBTQ+ people will feel as if their sexuality is not natural.

Sure! It's there now ☺️

TL;DR- At the time, (for the British) colonialism was seen as a good thing. But it's 2021, and as a society, we have to acknowledge how terrible and evil colonialism was.

Colonialism is easily one of the worst atrocities that has ever happened in human history. It enabled murder, enslavement, exploitation, discrimination, massacre, and more, and it's effects have lasted up to this day. In the 19th century, colonial rule was established by countries such as Britain over continents they saw as inferior and 'uncivilised'. The methods and practices of colonialism are explained below by Time4Africa:

[The so-called mission of 'civilisation' was uniformly carried out in the following manner:

1.  Seizure and confiscation of all land.
   

2.  Pillaging and theft of all natural assets. 
   

3.  Systematic murder, (ethnic cleansing), of dissident tribes  – Bushmen & Hottentots. 
   

4.  The creation of the Slave Trade.
   

5.  Introduction of Race Laws to suppress and dehumanise.
   

6.  The imposition of Christianity. In name but NOT in practice.
   

7.  Limitation of freedom of movement and education – a.k.a. Apartheid.
   

8.  The pretence that the indigenous population was inferior – unter-mensch.
   

9.  Institutionalisation of a Baas culture, with the superiority of the White man.
   

10. The lasting impoverishment, to this day, of the entire population of the Continent.] (https://zen4africa.com/2017/12/04/10-reasons-why-colonialism-was-bad-bad-bad/)

This atrocity cannot be justified, and is extremely rarely even discussed in school history classes. Britain is always painted as heroic, colonisers such as Christopher Columbus are constantly glorified, and the history curriculum in general is very Eurocentric and one-sided, hence failing to expose the inherently diabolical nature of colonialism.

The British Empire and colonialism are nothing to be proud of.

TL;DR- The American dream is not over, because it is a myth that never existed in the first place.

The American dream is the notion that in America, even those coming from the humblest of origins can build themselves up to 'greatness'. It is a concept that politicians and citizens alike have referenced for years.

However, the American dream never really existed in the first place, as it was a completely made-up idea to try and bring people to America and encourage them to 'better themselves' economically. The concept was also only really built for straight white men, completely marginalising women and BIPOC for example.

[It is evident from contemporary issues like the Black Lives Matter movement, the vast achievement gap, the intensely unequal distribution of wealth, etc., that Americans still do not all have equal opportunity for success] (https://dailyillini.com/opinions/2015/08/26/the-american-dream-is-not-dead-it-never-existed/).

Discrimination and prejudice regarding religion, gender, race, sexuality, etc. has always existed in America, and still does to this day, so it can easily be argued that without actual equality, the American dream cannot exist (and therefore never has).

Even if we go back to when the American dream was constantly being referenced, only a very small percentage of the population fitted the definition of the American dream. People like [Rockefeller and Carnegie were the 1% of the 1% of the 1% who lived in gilded opulence] (https://www.mythandmystery.com/wp/the-american-dream-never-existed/).

Throughout USA history, it's true that some people have achieved a life that fits the American dream narrative. But these cases are uncommon, and so many people are marginalised, that the whole concept of the American dream does not really make sense. It is largely a myth that never really existed, and was only a reality for a small portion of the population.

TL;DR- I think Emily Davison knew the risks and knew how much of a dangerous position she was in as soon as she stepped out onto the race-track. However I believe in the popular argument that she was attempting to pin the suffragette banner to the kings horse (as a publicity stunt) and it went tragically wrong.

There is much evidence to suggest that dying as a matyr was not Davison's intention, as she had on her a return ticket, an admission to a suffragette dance later that same evening, and was also ready to go on holiday to France to visit her sister. If Davison intended to die when she did, then why was she carrying things like these?

Because it was an accident. To throw the suffragette banner on the king's horse as it crossed the finish line at a famous derby would be the perfect publicity stunt, and would bring even more attention to the cause.

Suffragettes were also seen [practising grabbing horses] (https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people-politics/babe-ruth-and-oscar-wilde-in-5-facts/)before the race, and this strongly suggests that this is what they were planning, as they even [drew lots to decide who should do the job at the derby] (https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people-politics/babe-ruth-and-oscar-wilde-in-5-facts/). Why else would the suffragettes practise horse-grabbing if not to attempt a stunt? Also, Davison had two WSPU flags in her possession when she died.

A letter from another well-known suffragette, Sylvia Pankhurst, also exposes flaws in the theory that Davison intentionally killed herself. Pankhurst knew Davison, both of them being prominent suffragettes, and in her letter she stated the following:

[“She had concerted a derby protest without tragedy – a mere waving of the purple-white-and-green at Tattenham Corner, which, by its suddenness, it was hoped would stop the race. Whether from the first her purpose was more serious, or whether a final impulse altered her resolve, I know not. Her friend declares she would not thus have died without writing a farewell message to her mother.”] (https://www.historyanswers.co.uk/people-politics/babe-ruth-and-oscar-wilde-in-5-facts/)

I don't think Davison deliberately intended to kill herself at Epsom Derby, as evidence doesn't add up. However, I also think that she didn't mind risking her life for the suffragette cause.

When it comes to eating them, tacos are a lot less messy, and taste better too.
Burritos on the other hand, are more difficult to eat due to the huge size of them- it's near impossible to fit the whole thing in your mouth, and if you take normal sized bites, you make awkwardly placed holes in the tortilla (from which fillings begin to spill out of if you don't turn it around fast enough).

Tacos are also less messy because hard-shell tacos exist; with the crunchy maize shell, you can fill the whole taco without having to worry about how much weight it can take. On the other hand, the fragile tortilla of burritos can only take so much filling without tearing, and hard-shell burritos do not yet exist.

The way tacos look is also much more pleasing than burritos. With burritos, you don't know what you're getting until you bite into it, and on the outside, they're just plain tortilla wraps. However, with tacos, you get to see the delicious layers of filling before and as you eat them, and they just look great all lined up together at a party (they'd be more likely to catch your eye than a plate of beige burritos).

TL;DR- I think there's generally nothing wrong with swearing, and it can even be beneficial. Swear words are generally harmless if not aimed at anyone, and what we should be focusing on combating (in school, in the workplace, etc.) is slurs and hateful language.

According to a recent study by psychologist Richard Stephens, swearing increases pain tolerance: [students who repeated a curse word were able to keep their hand in a bucket of ice water longer than those who uttered a neutral word] (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160303-the-surprising-benefits-of-swearing). This makes sense, as swearing can be a very effective release of built up anger, pain, etc.- its a way of venting! It also [activates the 'fight or flight' response, leading to a surge of adrenaline and corresponding analgesic effect.] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-swearing)

Swearing is also a motivational expression, and a well-known and very effective study technique is to say 'f*ck it' and then launch yourself into typing that essay, rather than saying 'right, I can do this' and then proceeding to work. Swearing [can give us a greater sense of power and control over a bad situation] (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hide-and-seek/201205/hell-yes-the-7-best-reasons-swearing) or a difficult challenge, so it would definitely be helpful in this example.

Despite this, in schools and the workplace, swearing is disciplined fairly harshly (particularly at school). But shouldn't these environments be focusing on combating slurs and hateful language instead, rather than a student dropping a harmless f-bomb in excitement?

Swearing is something pretty much everyone does anyway, and can even be beneficial, so we shouldn't be so fussy about it. Racist, homophobic, ableist, etc. slurs, on the other hand, do actually hurt people and spread hate, so they are a completely different story.

TL;DR- Books can have sensitive content just as films and TV can, so it would make sense if books had content warnings in the front matter, so that people could avoid, or even just prepare for, reading things with scenes and themes that they may find upsetting.

Content warnings come with many types of media: they pop up at the top of the screen on all Netflix shows and films, they’re shown alongside an age rating before movies when you go to the cinema, and nowadays many social media posts and articles have a ‘TW’ at the beginning. However, most books do not have any trigger warnings.

Trigger warnings are [statements that let someone who is going to be experiencing something know that it contains sensitive materials that may trigger a trauma] (https://www.bookshelvesandpaperbacks.com/lets-talk-about-trigger-warnings-in-books/) and hence, can be very beneficial in media. One popular argument against adding trigger warnings to books (particularly fiction books) is that life itself has no content warnings, and, as the American Association for University Professors stated, [the classroom is not the appropriate venue to treat PTSD] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/18/life-doesnt-come-with-trigger-warnings-why-should-books).

This is true, as life is unpredictable- but this is also something we can’t change. On the other hand, we can change the fact that there are no trigger warnings in literature, and in changing this we can prevent people who have had these traumatic life experiences from having to be reminded of them whilst in the middle of reading a book, as they can decide whether to avoid, or even just prepare for potentially triggering events.

Besides, reading is something we do in order to learn or escape reality, so there should at least be a warning if a book is going to contain something that may force someone to relive a traumatic event.

Also, while it’s true that the classroom (in this example) isn’t the place to treat PTSD, but having trigger warnings at the beginning of books can at least help.

TL;DR- “You’re too easily offended” “They’re not really hurting anyone” and “Words don’t matter” are common responses thrown at people speaking up against discriminatory comments online. However hate speech (on social media for example) is actually a huge problem as it perpetuates, spreads, and even normalises discrimination everywhere, despite the fact that some people see it as insignificant.

Many people argue that we shouldn’t get so offended at a discriminatory post on Twitter, brushing it off as ‘trolling’ and that we should be focusing on hate in the real world. However, hate speech in the real world often stems from these seeds planted online, which then spread and grow, influencing people and normalising discrimination, allowing it to perpetuate- the exact opposite of what we need. This dismissive attitude towards online hate speech is [at best naive, but at worst dangerous as the denial of a threat allows it to grow stronger unchallenged] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/roanna-carletontaylor/online-hate-speech-why-wo_1_b_14245300.html).

In addition to spreading and normalising discrimination, online hate speech does directly effect it’s victims, having a huge impact on mental health as victims of online hate speech [may feel as if their human dignity was violated, no longer seeing themselves as good and appropriate] (https://www.standleague.org/blog/the-danger-of-hate-speech-on-social-media.html).

Additionally, online hate would, of course, make victims feel unsafe. For example, as anonymous as a hate page on Instagram may be, there is still a real person behind that page, thinking and acting in the same way as they do on the internet (further disproving the idea that the internet is not a reflection of the real world). This would make many people feel at risk, and [our right to safety must include psychological as well as physical safety] (https://impakter.com/hurt-feelings-real-danger-hate-speech/). If society continues to ignore social media hate as unimportant, then how can we even begin to combat this?

Online hate speech may seem like something that stays online, but this is definitely not true; in a lot of cases, discrimination merely starts online, before spreading into the ‘real world’, upholding bigotry and putting many people at risk. Also, even if it did only stay online, it’s still a huge problem as it spreads and normalises bigotry, when it has no place in the 21st century.

TL;DR- I don't think punctuation matters that much in texting, as texting is meant to be more expressive and spontaneous. You might break up sentences with emojis- laughing faces and such, or start a new text with every sentence, so the messages would flow almost like a real conversation.

For many people, myself included, punctuation = formality, and texting is usually friendly rather than serious (however I may use punctuation in a more serious text, or a long, letter like paragraph to someone).

Texting without punctuation is also nice as there are no rules- everyone who texts you has their own style, like excessive exclamation marks, emojis, capitalising loads of words to express strong feelings, or no capitalisation at all. Some people's texting style includes good punctuation, but if we all followed grammatical/punctuation rules in our texting, then it
may be harder to tell people texting us apart, with distinct voices blending into one of the same.

Punctuation and general style of texting has also changed with generations texting, for example, wRiTiNg LikE tHiS!!! may indicate mockery, or putting the sparkle emojis next to a word is a relatively new thing some people do for emphasis or sarcasm.

Also, texting is really supposed to be a fast way of communication- if I wanted to urgently text my friend something exciting that had just happened for example, I wouldn't let myself be slowed down with commas etc. My message would probably not be suitable for a formal email to a professor for example, but I would get my message across fast, and my friend would still be able to understand.

TL;DR- The whole 'tipping point' of the week argument is one I found very interesting, and agree with. However, I think that largely, the best day of the week varies not only between different people, but different periods of your life.

When I was in college, my favourite day was Thursday, with my extra long break between lessons and a new episode of my TV show coming out weekly. It has changed countless times since then, and now it's definitely Saturday- no lectures, plenty of food, cleaning all done yesterday.

I expect my favourite day will change hundreds of times more; people's lives are so unpredictable, with things changing all the time. Until you settle into a more structured lifestyle (in retirement or in a steady job for example), your best day of the week is bound to change all the time. You could be working multiple jobs, over weekends etc, with your favourite day being the least busy day at work, and then skip ahead a few years, you're working a 5 day week, and like a large portion of the population, you love Friday best.

Even outside of work, for example if you went out to meet a friend usually on the same day- that may become your best day of the week, even if it wasn't necessarily the weekend. Everyone's best day of the week will change a lot throughout their lives, Monday could be your least favourite one day, and then you may look back and laugh at how this time 5 years ago you hated it.

However, Friday is definitely overrated, especially if it doesn't mean a break for everyone. I remember working weekend jobs and while lots of people cheered for the weekend, I definitely dreaded it!

This is so true, and I was disappointed but not really that surprised to see #NotAllMen trending on Twitter following the tragic events of this week. It does not help one bit, and like #AllLivesMatter, it diverts from actual problems (e.g. women and Black people being attacked) and turns it into a big "but what about me?" statement.

Responses from authorities (though very well-intentioned, and nowhere near as irritating and tone-deaf as #NotAllMen) also diverted the situation, advising women to take caution (which has been drilled into us since childhood anyway). This, of course, was well-meaning and true, but it still implied that attacks such as that on Sarah Everard and Blessing Olusegun are not a men's problem, but rather, something women should take precaution for. The graphic with 'protect your daughters' crossed out in red and 'educate your sons' written underneath circulated around social media in response to this.

Obviously it's true that only a small portion of men are predators (and obviously any gender can attack any gender), but it's just concerning to think that a woman is killed and the first thing that comes to too many people's minds is "it wasn't me'" rather than, "that's so awful, how can we, as a society, do better?"

Also, in this thread, most comments, including mine, have stated something along the lines of 'obviously we know it's not all men' . This arguably suggests that women feel the need to say this to avoid getting interrupted when trying to share our thoughts and experiences, even though 'not all men' is a given.

(for this I'm going to be focusing on books rather than lyrics, magazines, etc.)

Some people complain that literature is 'too PC' or 'woke' nowadays and can no longer be read just to escape the hustle and bustle of real life. due to being full of underlying messages.

Firstly it makes no sense to moan about literature being 'too PC' because the world we live in is full of discrimination, prejudice, etc. and literature is a great way to educate and spread awareness on social problems. If someone complains about books having too much 'political correctness' then they are most likely in a position privileged enough to ignore it otherwise.
Besides, one of the main aims of literature is to bring across messages through metaphors, characters etc. (this is not anything new).

And secondly, even when literature is an escape from reality, it is still simultaneously a reflection of it- even if it's set in another world. An example of this would be the Harry Potter series; even though this is a fantasy saga, there are many themes reflective of real life (e.g. governments in denial of a threat, clinical depression, and more).

So literature really allows us to escape real life, and face up to it at the same time.

TL;DR-There are many reasons as to why baby gender reveal parties cause controversy. One of the reasons being how they perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and the socially constructed binary of gender.

Gender reveal parties carry on gender stereotypes due to the fact that many of them are themed around tight and outdated concepts of binary gender, with banners and cakes iced with questionable [words such as Bows or bow ties? Ties or tutus? Guns or glitter?’] (https://www.romper.com/p/11-reasons-why-i-hate-gender-reveal-parties-45878). Yet this is ridiculous as it perpetuates the idea that children’s interests etc are based on their sex- something we shouldn’t be carrying on into the 21st century.

As Jamie Kenney argues in Romper, gender reveal parties are also often a grounds for the attendees to make subliminally (or straight up) sexist jokes, occasionally going into [really icky territory like the "joking-but-not-really" preference for a son to "carry on the family name" or the hilarious ribbing that a baby girl is going to spend all of her father's money so he'd better watch out] (https://www.romper.com/p/11-reasons-why-i-hate-gender-reveal-parties-45878).

Gender reveal parties also reinforce the idea that gender is purely binary, when it is actually more of a spectrum, and a social construct. Gender and sex are two different things, and when parents plan gender reveal parties, they are actually revealing the baby’s sex through cake cutting or potentially dangerous smoke cannons blasting pink or blue.

Doctor Barker states that the idea is also ‘bad for all kids because it sets them up to believe that the division between girls and boys, women and men, is a really important one’, and that they [need to conform to rigid ideas of what it means to be a feminine woman or a masculine man] (https://www.vogue.co.uk/mini-vogue/article/is-the-gender-reveal-party-over), and this is positively out of date.

In many cases, gender and sex will be the same; [this is called cisgender] (https://www.scarymommy.com/hate-gender-reveal-parties/). However gender reveal parties assume otherwise, and even if that isn’t the parents intention and they mean no harm, it unconsciously perpetuates this strict binary.

Arwa Mahdawi interestingly stated in The Guardian: [I’m only half joking here. Can you imagine if trans people regularly set fire to forests in order to tell the world their gender? The practice would be criminalized immediately] (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/12/gender-reveal-wildfires-harmful-gender-binaries).

Though some gender reveals are ultimately harmless- surely all that matters is that a healthy baby is born? It would definitely be nicer to have a party to celebrate this instead, as gender reveal parties only reveal the weight we as a society place on gender and its harmful stereotypes.

TL;DR- The Body Mass Index, or BMI, is outdated, highly flawed and even discriminatory, despite still being promoted today as a way of measuring whether or not your weight is healthy, when in fact, it does more harm than good.

The BMI chart was invented in 1832 by Adolphe Quetelet to measure weight differences, and in his research, he used mostly white European men. His chart did not take into account [muscle mass, bone density, overall body composition or differences in women and people of colour] (https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215#An-example-of-the-biggest-flaw-in-using-BMI). It was also not even intended for the way we use it today, in addition to Quetelet himself not even being in the medical profession.

This makes it a wholly ineffective scale, and even harmful to non-white people, women, and especially women of colour as it is [racist, and also sexist, to use mostly white men within your study population and then try to extrapolate that and create norms and expectations for women and people of color] (https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bmi-scale-racist-health_l_5f15a8a8c5b6d14c336a43b0). Yes, Quetelete’s data may have been viewed as acceptable back in the 19th century, but why are we still using this method today?

It is evident that this archaic BMI scale can cause harm, particularly to Black women, as seen in Maya Lorde’s case:

[‘I have felt bad about my weight my entire life, thinking I was always unhealthy and fat. That is not actually true. So, while I was striving for the perfect BMI, I was destroying my body and my self-image'] (https://themighty.com/2020/07/bmi-measure-racist-sexist-harming-black-women/).

Aside from the racist, sexist origins of BMI, it is also inaccurate, as a study published by the RAND Corporation showed that the waist size explained the higher type 2 diabetes rate in the USA than the UK, not BMI. So in reality, we should be moving on from this highly flawed scale.

As Adele Jackson-Gibson states in Good Housekeeping, given how diverse human beings are, it's logical that pushing all individuals to maintain the same body standards would lead to trouble. We can’t squish everybody into this 19th century system when it doesn’t even cater to and consider the individual. Also, a person’s weight does not determine their health.

TL;DR- Mamma Mia 2 is much more enjoyable than the first film; with the fun storyline, the exciting time-hopping, scenery, and great characters, it is something that can be watched over and over again. However, after watching it once, I would not want to watch the first Mamma Mia again as I found it quite lacklustre.

Because we know nothing about Donna's summer affairs in the first Mamma Mia, the film is quite confusing and generally feels like we're missing out on a large chunk of the story (although, this is the point and the reason why they made a sequel).

The film stays on the Greek island of Kalokairi, following the story of Sophie getting ready for her wedding with the help of her mother, Donna. Although there is some pretty scenery, enjoyable dance scenes, etc., the general atmosphere of the film does seem very drawn-out; it feels like they just spend the whole time on the island fretting about the wedding and Sophie's three dads. Also, Donna seems to be the only character in the film who isn't one-dimensional (Sophie and Sky for example are generally boring characters).

On the other hand, in Mamma Mia 2, the story is a lot more dynamic, flitting between Oxford, Paris, and eventually Kalokairi, back and forth in time, with a constant change in scenery, mood, etc.

As well as this, the film spends a good amount of time on each character, so that they all have a bit of a backstory and a personality. If someone asked you- who's your favourite character in the first Mamma Mia? Unless you liked Donna or Sophie the best, you may be a little stumped- the three dads are all quite flat, and it's easy to confuse one with another, Sophie's friends seem to only exist to aid Sophie's character arc (or lack thereof), and Sky seems barely present in the story.

Whereas, it's hard to choose just one favourite character in the sequel (though Tanya and Rosie are quite iconic) as they are all so fleshed out and dynamic, played by brilliant actors and given their own quirks and flaws.

While it's true that Mamma Mia 2 may have a few plot holes (like Donna's mother back from the dead as Cher), I just found the second film a lot more fun and engaging, and a generally more easy-to-watch film than the first.

TL;DR- I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with identifying with an aesthetic, as they can be fun and a great way to express yourself. However, it can become problematic when a once harmless aesthetic is taken too far and lacks inclusivity.

The aesthetic I'm going to be looking at here is 'dark academia'. I am personally very fond of this aesthetic, and if people use it to identify themselves then that's a great way of artistic self-expression.

However, there are some people who take this aesthetic way too far, and I see a lot of posts explaining why dark academia can sometimes be taken to a point where it's not just an aesthetic anymore, but rather an excuse to say harmful things etc.

Dark academia is an aesthetic based around classic literature, mythology, the 18th and 19th centuries, and the Gothic/Romantic eras of art, poetry, philosophy, etc.

Although appreciation of the aesthetic from this period is often harmless, some people aligning themselves with dark academia take the aesthetic as an excuse to venerate the elitist and intolerant ideas of some of these 18th century academics and philosophers.

There are many critiques of dark academia regarding this, in addition to the fact that the aesthetic is wholly Eurocentric. As Emily Jewett states in Study Break:

'[Dark academia] falls short of what it could be. Unfortunately, in its skyrocket to popularity, this aesthetic has become Eurocentric and white-washed...When I searched “dark academia” on Pinterest, any person included in a photo was seemingly white. White hands, white arms, white faces and European hair. I scrolled and scrolled but found nothing deviating from the Eurocentric norm' [1].

So dark academia does definitely have its problems underneath the surface of a seemingly harmless aesthetic. It has also received criticisms for supposedly romanticising mental illness and alcoholism.

There is nothing wrong with aligning yourself with an aesthetic, or multiple aesthetics, as long as you go about it in a healthy, inclusive way and don't take it to such an elitist extreme. Aesthetics are, after all, artistic expressions rather than strict ways of life.

[1] Emily Jewett in Study Break, January 18, 2021 [https://studybreaks.com/culture/reads/dark-academia-diversity/]

TL;DR- Summer was my favourite season as a child; it meant no school, going on holiday, longer, warmer days, and my birthday. However, with the UK summers getting hotter every year and heat sucking the fun out of everything, I now think it is definitely the worst season.

I can't remember the last time there was a summer in the UK without constant heatwaves hitting 40 degrees. Whenever the headline 'Britain to bask in 30 degree heatwave' came up on my news-feed last year and the year before (and probably this year as well), I let out a sigh of contempt. It also feels like the headline 'hottest summer for 40 years' is something that pops up an awful lot.

When it's this hot, the positive effects of the sunny weather can reverse- being in a good mood due to the warmth can quickly, and often does, turn into lack of motivation and energy because the intense heat is so draining.

This heat exhaustion is particularly hard during physical activity and going to work, which is also more chaotic in the summer (e.g. outdoor sports events are more popular, and pubs become absolutely packed with customers, which is hard on the staff who have to work through the heat whilst wearing uniform).

It's true that being out in the sun can boost your mental and physical health. However, this is much more effective in May or September for example, when it's still warm, but not so hot that it can give you sun stroke.

Also, when it's cold, it's easier to get warm (e.g. by putting more layers on). Yet when you're already boiling in shorts and a t-shirt, it is much harder to cool down.

TL;DR- Though classic music can be very effective, Lo-Fi is the best music to study to due to the way it both relaxes and keeps you focused at the same time.

It's true that classical music benefits areas of your brain, allowing increased concentration and productivity. However, oftentimes classical music can be cacophonous with over-the-top fortes and dramatic changes in volume which can be very distracting.

On the other hand, Lo-Fi is much more consistent and relaxing. Lo-Fi stands for low-fidelity, meaning that it contains technical flaws such as hum, distortion, and limited frequency response. These flaws in the music trigger the cerebrum in your brain, helping increase focus and productvity [1].

As well as increasing concentration, Lo-Fi music relaxes and lowers the blood pressure, allowing you to study with less stress also. This is due to the genrally lower BPM. Whereas this varies a lot more in classical music, for example, studying along to a manic song such as Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's Flight of the Bumblebee could make your study session more stressful.

[1] Brenden Lutes in Hyde School, November 17, 2017 [https://www.hyde.edu/blog/hyde_school_blog/lo-fi-music-a-secret-to-focusing-during-study-sessions/]

TL;DR- ‘Women’s fiction is a popular genre in the book industry, however the term is rather archaic and sexist. Calling a literary genre by this name makes no sense as ‘women’s fiction’ can be enjoyed by all genders, and literature shouldn’t be confined and gendered like this, but enjoyed by all who wish to consume it.

There are many reasons why we shouldn’t refer to light-hearted, funny, romantic literature as ‘women’s fiction’. One of these reasons is because it enforces outdated gender stereotypes, unnecessarily squishing literature into a binary view of gender.

Though well-intentioned, the genre name suggests that only women can write/read romantic, fluffy, fun stories, because as soon as you attach the label ‘for women’ onto something, it automatically becomes a product that is ‘not for men’ [1]. As Trisha Jenn Loehr states in her blog, ‘have you ever witnessed a parent in a bookstore tell their son, “You can’t get that book, it’s for girls.” Or heard a boy say, “Ew, that’s for girls” when a book has a female protagonist or a girl on the cover? [2].

The gendering of books is just completely unnecessary and archaic, and ‘women’s fiction’ reduces women authors to a sub-category- when you browse in Amazon’s ‘women’s fiction’ category for example, the literature there is ‘united only by the authors' gender’ [3]. There is no category for ‘men’s literature’ as male is still seen as the default.

I’m not saying that we should scrap ‘women’s fiction’, we should just call it something different, because it’s archaic and sexist to refer to the light-hearted, romantic sub-genre as exclusively for women. It suggests that women writers are incapable of writing more serious, ‘literary’ fiction, and this is exactly how we get situations such as Harper Lee being accused of not writing To Kill A Mockingbird- as of course, only a man could write such a literary classic.

Referring to this rom-com literary genre as ‘women’s fiction’ also suggests that men should not read/write these romantic stories, reinforcing toxic masculinity and gender roles in general. As Bellarah states in her blog, the category ‘women’s fiction’ is ‘alienating for men who do enjoy books by and about women, who then may not want to admit it for fear of scorn’ [4]. She then goes on to rightly state that men should be able to enjoy Jane Austen, for example, without receiving judgemental stares.

Categorising feel-good, romantic novels as ‘women’s fiction’ is highly problematic, as people should read and write whatever they want, regardless of their gender. Also, women should not be perceived as only being able to write funny romance novels.

[1 & 2] Trisha Jenn Loehr in Trisha Jenn Reads, August 7, 2019 [https://trishajennreads.com/2019/08/07/why-womens-fiction-is-important-why-more-men-should-read-it/]
[3] Alison Flood in The Guardian, May 16, 2014 [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/may/16/women-fiction-sign-sexist-book-industry]
[4] Bellarah in Bookarahma, November 24, 2015 [https://bookarahma.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/womens-fiction-and-why-it-is-a-problem/]

TL;DR- Throughout Jodie Whittaker’s seasons of Doctor Who, there have been floods of complaints that the sci-fi series is getting ‘too political’, as many newer episodes have storylines which highlight current affairs and world issues. However, this is a good thing, as viewers can be entertained, and learn something at the same time.

During season 11 and 12, many fans of the longest running sci-fi series complained on Twitter, etc. that the show is ‘too PC’, with too many episodes as metaphors for real world problems. They argue that watching a TV series such as Doctor Who is supposed to be an escape from reality, and should be scary rather than ‘preachy’ and ‘trying to push a “social justice warrior” agenda’ [1].

However, highlighting world problems through a family TV show is highly effective in raising awareness in parents and children alike. As James Baldock states in Metro (referring to an episode about Rosa Parks):

“I was one of the people who, nearly three weeks ago, was rolling my eyes at the final moments of Rosa, and what I perceived as an overriding preachiness...it was my other half who pointed out what I’d missed: our children had enjoyed it. And that it told a story that needed to be told, that it was a message they needed to hear, particularly in these dark and divisive days” [2].

Not only was Rosa a fantastic and emotional episode, enjoyed by children (as seen above), but it also spoke up on racism- what grudge could anyone possibly hold against that? It’s a good thing that things like discrimination are highlighted in popular TV shows as it helps to bring to light the fact that it is all around us. Also, if you’re complaining about Doctor Who’s portrayal of discrimination here being ‘too political’, then you’re likely privileged enough to ignore your privilege until you are reminded by the TV show.

People say they miss the good old days where Doctor Who had scary monsters, but in truth, there are scary monsters in real life, and one effective way of raising awareness is to portray them through a much-loved family show that millions of people will be watching.

[1] Lucy Jones in Independent, December 6, 2018 [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/doctor-who-politically-correct-backlash-bbc-jodie-whittaker-mandip-gill-tosin-cole-a8669156.html]
[2] James Baldock in Metro, November 11, 2018 [https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/11/yes-jodie-whittakers-doctor-who-concentrates-on-social-justice-issues-and-theres-a-crucial-reason-for-it-8114319/]

TL;DR- I think that if a second test had to be done, many drivers approaching older age may be put off from driving altogether. This may be a good thing, as less cars would be on the road, however this also isn't really fair.

Driving tests take a lot of investment in both time and money, and going through all the hassle of driving tests all over again at the age of say 60 may not look very appealing, hence causing older people to give it up.

When I first voted for this, I clicked agree, as Prince Phillip's recent accident sprang to mind, but upon further thought, I realised that this is only one case, and most cases of road accidents involve younger, newer, and altogether less experienced drivers.

Additionally, many driving instructors agree that once you've passed your test, every time you drive is like a lesson, and this experience is the only way you really become an expert at driving. So if anything, older drivers may be safer than young ones.

It may also be harder for older people to spend money on a driving test due to being retired and not having a large enough pension to pay for it, for example. Especially if they were to fail, and have to re-take the test again; driving tests themselves have changed a lot through the years, and are harder now (especially with the theory test).

As well as this, driving test slots are already in high demand anyway with extensive waiting lists, which would be doubled if older people who could already drive joined onto it. It makes sense to focus on getting new drivers out on the road, yet older people should be free to book tests if they feel the need to, say if they haven't driven in ages and feel as if they're getting a little rusty.

TL;DR- Bullfighting is very cruel, causing pain and death to lovely innocent bulls for no reason other than the 'entertainment' of others. For this reason alone it should be banned, however there is another reason why this vicious blood-sport should be illegal everywhere: bullfighting can also harm the Matador.

As much as the Matador is aware of the pain they're causing an innocent beast, and the risk that they themselves are taking, they shouldn't be injured in the name of 'sport' either.

Around 47 bullfights a year see either the picador or matador get injured [1], and in some cases, the Matador also dies as a result of fight injuries. Human-animal studies professor, Garry Marvin states in BBC News that:

'If a normal person got into the ring with a fighting bull, I'd expect them to be severely gored or dead in a few moments. Matadors are highly skilled, however, and may go several seasons without injury' [2].

As well as the Matador's 'skill' being absolutely nothing to be proud of (why take pride in brutally murdering an innocent creature?), this data just goes to show that bullfighting helps nobody. It's extremely dangerous and is not worth the risk for anyone. With the harm it causes to the bull and the way it could maim the matador, there is no valid reason to keep this archaic blood-sport legal.

[1] Iwan Hopkins in The Mancunion, October 31, 2019 [https://mancunion.com/2019/10/31/opinion-bullfighting-should-be-banned/]
[2] Garry Marvin in BBC News, May 22, 2014 [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27520374]

TL;DR- True crime documentaries are viewed as a form of entertainment. But they have never sat comfortably with me, as it doesn't seem right to make entertainment out of some of the tragic, real-life stories that are explored in crime documentaries.

It can be argued that crime documentaries and crime dramas are one of the same; they both rely on drama and shock value, and the thrill of solving the 'juicy murder'. However, with crime dramas, everything that's happening is fictional, so it's easier to enjoy the drama, knowing that it's only acting.

Yet with true crime documentaries, it doesn't feel right to be sitting there indulging in the drama, because these are real people, and real cases that actually impacted real lives. Many people say ' I love a good true crime documentary' and get excited over them to the point where it just seems a little insensitive.

A popular example would be when Netflix gave us The Disappearance of Madeline McCann in 2019. I understand why many are captivated by this, wondering who was responsible and what happened. This captivation is only natural, and there's nothing wrong with it- as humans we are inherently curious, wanting to think of theories and find answers to unsolved mysteries. Since ancient times humans have wanted an explanation for everything.

Yet it just seems wrong for Netflix to make entertainment out of a real child's disappearance, and it feels even more unethical for the company to make profit from of it.

TL;DR- I definitely agree that they're essential, as they can open up new points of view (e.g. how people wrote and viewed the world in the social/political context of different times). Although, the importance of classic literature is often overrated, and put above contemporary literature, which can just as inspiring and educational as classics novels if not more.

As Maja Mazur states in The Courier, the fact that classics 'were written a long time ago and managed to remain in public awareness through all these years doesn’t automatically make them good and certainly doesn’t mean that they’re better than modern books'.

Some people are outraged when a piece of contemporary literature is compared to a classic and put on the same level- how could a modern novel be compared to a timeless work of genius?

It's true that the classic author may have been brave and ahead of their time in their writing and ideas, hence creating a lasting and timeless 'classic'. But this doesn't mean that we can't write brave and important books nowadays.

Classics are also (over)praised in schools, dominating the reading list, whereas contemporary literature is overlooked, and very rarely even on the curriculum.

However, contemporary literature should be studied in equal measure; they can be picked apart, analysed, and learned from just as effectively as a classic novel. Why should we put Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre above Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Purple Hibiscus, just because it's considered a 'classic'? They are both compelling and essential stories, breaking conventions, despite them being centuries apart.

It may even help students to study a mix of contemporary and modern literature, as the two can be compared and contrasted (in addition to being generally easier to read).

[1] Maja Mazur in The Courier, November 30, 2020 [https://www.thecourieronline.co.uk/is-classic-literature-overrated/]

TL;DR- The ‘cola wars’ have been going on for decades, with the biggest dispute being between Coca-Cola and Pepsi (escalating with the introduction of ‘New Coke’ in 1985) [1]. The two companies have been competing since their birth, but in reality, Dr Pepper is better than both of them combined.

One reason for Dr Pepper’s superiority compared to its carbonated counterparts is the general taste of it. Dr Pepper has a unique and refreshing caramel taste, with its ‘sparkling blend of 23 fruit and spice flavours’ [2]. It’s also carbonated just right, so that the bubbles are not so intense that you can’t taste the actual flavour.

Too much fizz is very much the case in both Coke and Pepsi, as both of them are so over-carbonated that it’s hard to tell what they’re even meant to taste like.

There are no fruit and spice flavourings in Coca-Cola, which is instead flavoured by vague ‘vegetable extracts’, and Pepsi’s almost citrusy flavour is overpowered by bubbles. They also both taste pretty much the same, whereas Dr Pepper is much more distinctive.

Dr Pepper’s taste is also better than Coke or Pepsi as it isn’t ruined by too much sugar. In fact, 250ml of Dr Pepper contains 12g of sugar, which although quite high, it is nowhere near as high as Coca-Cola, which has 27g, and Pepsi which has 28g per 250ml.

The fact that Dr Pepper has less makes the beverage not only healthier, but also more delicious than its rivals, because the sugar doesn’t overwhelm your tastebuds.

[1] Becky Little in History, March 12, 2020 [https://www.history.com/news/cola-wars-pepsi-new-coke-failure]
[2] Sainsbury’s online groceries [https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/gol-ui/product/pepsi/pepsi-2l]

TL;DR- Many people complain that political correctness is ruining comedy. Yet it is not ruining it, but rather helping it evolve and grow to fit the time period, making comedy as a whole more enjoyable- like it should be.

In recent years, many people have attacked the complaints about offensive jokes some comedians tell, arguing that people are "too soft" nowadays and "can’t take a joke". However political correctness is actually helping the comedy industry, making it more enjoyable for the whole audience, rather than making significant portions of the audience sit uncomfortably as their race / religion / gender / orientation, etc. is made the butt of a harmful joke.

Political correctness shows us how comedy is moving on, not killing it. As Nikita Redkar states in Everyday Feminism, ‘comedy is way different than what it used to be’ and ‘a healthy awareness of our current political mindset only helps to make comedy more vibrant and widespread’ [1].

So, instead of complaining on Twitter about political correctness ‘gone mad’, a comedian who had made an offensive joke should reflect on their mistake, consider why the joke received the backlash it did, and learn for next time. This way, they could evolve/improve as a comedian, ‘growing and adapting to what the audience will accept, and figuring out how to be funny within those parameters’ [2], as the audience is what matters in the world of performance.

Political correctness also challenges comedy in this sense, so that comedians don’t repeat the same overdone offensive tropes and be more adventurous and inclusive in their jokes. Comedians who use deliberately offensive jokes usually add them to their set for shock value, but this degrading way of ‘upsetting people to make others laugh (in a grander sense, not a “Roast”-type format) is an archaic way of looking at comedy’ [3].

Therefore, comedy really is evolving, not being ‘murdered by political correctness’, as comedians are encouraged to cater to their audiences, rather than alienating large portions of them.

To conclude, political correctness isn't ruining comedy, and is in fact, helping it to move forward. Sweeping statements like "you can’t say anything anymore" when talking about comedy make no sense when there's evidence showing ‘increased ticket sales for live comedy events, more successful sketch comedy shows on television than ever before, and a seemingly never-ending stream of comedy podcasts cultivating distinct audiences’ [4].

Political correctness is not ‘oversensitivity’, it merely brings about a ‘healthy awareness of our current political and cultural mindset’, hence making comedy a more welcoming environment [5]. That is, after all, what comedy should be about- having a laugh and escaping a stressful life, not making ‘harmless’ jokes out of people, and prolonging prejudicial ideas into an age where they don't belong.

[1 & 5] Nikita Redkar in Everyday Feminism, February 8, 2016 [https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/02/pc-culture-not-ruining-comedy/]
[2] Rebecca Shaw in The Guardian, May 27, 2018 [https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/may/28/political-correctness-isnt-killing-comedy-scared-old-stagnant-comedians-are]
[3] Rachel Leishman in The Mary Sue, September 23, 2019 [https://www.themarysue.com/bill-hader-on-comedy/]
[4] Herschel Pandya in The Vulture, February 9, 2016 [https://www.vulture.com/2016/02/maybe-political-correctness-isnt-ruining-comedy.html]

TL;DR- I definitely agree with this as there shouldn't be so much social pressure for anyone to take anyone's name when getting married. If they want to keep their own name, double barrel, or even make a new one, people should be free to do so.

In the case of a woman taking a mans name, this freedom should definitely exist- as the taking of the husbands name is quite old-fashioned and nobody should feel pressured to uphold this tradition. That said, women should definitely still feel free to take their husband's name if that's what they want!

Another reason to consider not taking your husbands name, according to Faye in Scary Mommy, is that you are not trying to be your husband:

"I don’t strive to become more like him. It’s not my goal to morph into his world, his orbit. Our differences are what make us strong. And one of those differences, inconsequential as it may be, is our names." [1]

This is a good point, as marriage should not be about the husband overshadowing the wife; it should be about both parties, two whole people coming together as equals, not two 'halves' becoming one.

Women should have a choice when it comes to name-changing after marriage. Yet whether they choose to keep, double-barrel, or take their husband's name, they should not have to face judgement from their peers and society in general, whatever they choose to do.

Some feminists attack women for taking their husband's name- yet this is not fair and actually very unfeminist; feminism is about giving women a choice- and in this case, the choice whether they want to keep their last name or not.

[1] Faye in Scary Mommy, March 23, 2016 [https://www.scarymommy.com/name-change-after-marriage/]

TL;DR- I definitely agree with this; it may seem like a small thing but language has such a big impact on society that communicating things with gender neutral terms would absolutely help to bolster inclusivity and clarity.

For example, if children were to grow up in a world where their teachers, parents, etc. said things like 'police officer' instead of 'policeman'- it would lead to them carrying on gender-inclusive language into the next generation, as they would be accustomed to it.

In this example, children would not be conditioned (whether intentionally or unconsciously) to think that careers are gendered. It's a small yet impactful habit we definitely need to bring into everyday language.

Many people at the moment, such as elder generations (because of the times in which they grew up, where most doctors were men for example) may accidentally assume a 'he' when a 'she' or 'they' is actually being referred to, or vice versa (e.g. "I went to see the doctor yesterday" "What did he say?" "She said there's nothing to worry about").

This is not necessarily anybody's fault because it's due to habit and conditioning, yet if we're going to phase this out, gender inclusive language ought to be used whenever possible.

There is also the interesting way in which many people make women the afterthought in their communication. For example when people say "he...or she" (with hesitation, and then emphasis on the "OR SHE") during lectures, speeches, interviews, etc. (as noted by James Acaster during a stand up performance: https://youtu.be/i_xVAqJ-NY0).

But by making little alterations (such as simply saying 'they' instead of 'he...or she'), we can guarantee inclusivity for all genders. in terms of the way we use language.

TL;DR- There are many benefits of sleeping naked. However, in certain climates it is rather the opposite of beneficial, as it's hard to keep the right temperature.

It may seem sensible to sleep naked in the summer to avoid getting too hot. Yet, while this seems like the best option, studies have shown that when temperatures are high, the best thing to wear to bed is light cotton pyjamas, as the last thing you want is your actual duvet getting all sweaty.

With pyjamas, you can just wash them after 2-3 nights, whereas duvets are much more of a pain to wash, and if they're getting your body's natural oils on them all the time, you'd have to wash them more frequently.

On the other hand, sleeping naked in the winter may be harder. Even if your house is warm, it gets awfully cold most winter mornings, and it would be even harder to get out of the warm duvets in the morning, and into the freezing bedroom until you jump in the shower or put clothes on.

Also, there is nothing better than being all nice and cosy in your pyjamas and duvets during the colder months, and being cosy in fluffy garments makes it much easier to fall asleep as well.

With sleeping naked, on the other hand, you're more likely to wake up at 3 in the morning shivering, especially as your body temperature changes during the sleep cycle [1].

[1] Hannah Smothers in Cosmopolitan, August 18, 2017 [https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a12027462/never-sleep-naked/]

TL;DR- A tax on sugary drinks may promote healthier diets in the US, as the sugar in many beloved beverages is often higher than you'd think. However, there is much evidence to suggest that a sugary drinks tax may not be very effective.

One reason for this is that it would be quite difficult to decide on what classes as a 'sugary' drink. For example, fresh orange juice is very high in sugar, yet it is also an easy way to consume one of your 5 a day (which should be encouraged for a healthy diet). Fresh orange is also high in vitamin C, and the sugar in the beverage is also usually natural (with no added refined sugar).

There is also diet sodas to consider, for example, there is about 12 grams of sugar in one serving of orange juice, and none in a can of diet coke. Yet between these two, the more sugary option would also be the healthier option.

There are also drinks which are carbonated, but still have many health benefits, such as kombucha, which is high in probiotics. Kombucha usually comes in a can mixed in with carbonated water etc, so they sometimes are quite sugary. The large unsweetened bottles of kombucha are generally more expensive also, compared to their canned counterparts.

Many drinks like these are technically full of sugar, however sometimes the benefit (fruit, vitamins, etc.) outweighs the risk (sugar). Also, if a tax on sugary drinks alone was introduced, these calories could still be made up for on other sugary snacks.

I definitely agree with this! It can be good to be proud of your country, but when this patriotism oversteps the line into xenophobia, it becomes a huge problem.Today, some people will use patriotism as an excuse for being outright xenophobic.

TL;DR- The COVID-19 situation has been, and continues to be treated with urgency, as it should be. However, the climate crisis will also kill millions and affect the lives of us all (and already is), so why aren’t governments across the world treating it with equal alarm?

The COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented, and it hasn’t even been a year since Boris Johnson first ordered a national lockdown. However, scientists and activists alike have been warning us about the devastating effects of global warming for years, and yet, world leaders have not acted with the same urgency as with COVID-19. This is because, to many, it seems unreal and distant in the future.

Yet this is definitely not the case, as people all around the world are affected by climate change every day, for example in 2018, where over 60 million people suffered, with ‘more than 1,600 [people dying] in Europe, Japan and the US because of heatwaves and wildfires’ and ‘Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe [being devastated by] cyclone Idai’ [1]. Just because someone in London can’t feel the immediate effects of it (except experiencing more frequent summer heat waves etc.), doesn’t mean that it’s not already killing thousands elsewhere, because it is.

Unlike the current pandemic, ‘it is harder to visualise how climate breakdown will affect us each as individuals’ in the future, which is the argument many use to justify why governmental action cannot be taken yet [2]. However, not only is climate change already affecting us, but also, surely it is better to listen to science and take action now, as there are many things we can do with immediate effect to try and lessen the devastation the climate crisis could cause/is already causing.

Surely if we’ve learned anything from this pandemic, it’s that society can adapt in order to prevent disaster, and that delayed reactions are not the answer. There was much outrage towards the UK government’s late reaction to COVID-19, however outrage about the decades-long delay on climate change continues to be waved away as alarmism’ [3].

We’ve been aware of global warming for decades, and according to scientists, we have less than ten years until the effects become irreversible. Therefore, the excuse that the effects of climate change are ‘ages away’ is no longer valid- they are real and are already happening, just as COVID-19 is sweeping the globe.

The action in terms of tackling COVID-19 was, and still is, important. Yet it does not make sense that we are putting the climate crisis, which isn’t even unprecedented, on the back-burner. As Owen Jones states in The Guardian:

‘[The climate crisis] is a global emergency that has already killed on a mass scale and threatens to send millions more to early graves. As its effects spread, it could destabilise entire economies and overwhelm poorer countries lacking resources and infrastructure. But governments are not assembling emergency national plans and you’re not getting push notifications transmitted to your phone breathlessly alerting you to dramatic twists and developments from South Korea to Italy. [A]

[1, 2 & 4] Owen Jones in The Guardian, March 5, 2020 [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/05/governments-coronavirus-urgent-climate-crisis]
[3] Amy Westervelt in Huffington Post, March 23, 2020 [https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-climate-change-fossil-fuel-profits_n_5e786da4c5b6f5b7c547329e?ri18n=true&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFwdlCum-QC3MKiKZi8U_jhmGIUF9PUTyb8cpB5m4Kzi1wZzw9QDuOGkoHLLIxgIad8604xjcz7In9SkVn39Kj1GK0T9J_wMgwOLJhdQDnlRUqSPcqfrfvDDN_3ODnIx7u20wEdkTW2sZRWZvPrme3F4rdHR66mbKZijs4dzOjyN]

TL;DR- Many people are denied jobs because they have an ‘unprofessional’ appearance (through tattoos, piercings, unnatural hair colours, etc). However this rule is ridiculous, one reason for this being that things like tattoos genuinely do not affect how well a person works.

The rule is positively out of date, supported by the fact that nowadays, ‘97% of American adult consumers wouldn’t change current product shopping habits if employees had visible tattoos and piercings’ [1]. This makes perfect sense, as a tiny portion of people actually care whether others decide to change their appearance with tattoos, hair dye, etc. So why should it be such a big deal in the workplace?

Many companies argue that allowing employees to have ‘unprofessional’ piercings etc. would repel potential customers, yet this could easily go the other way- ‘if customers hear that a company doesn’t allow tattoos or piercings, it is likely to lose customers and potential workers’ [D].

There are much more important things to look for in potential workers than what they have decided to do with their own bodies, such as their skills, experience, personality, etc. This seems like a given, but with questionable rules such as ‘no visible tattoos’, an otherwise suitable candidate could be completely disregarded. Would a doctor with years of training and experience be any worse at their job if they had a full arm of body art for example?

As Sylvia Asmar states in Odyssey Online, ‘if you hire someone based on whether they have tattoos and piercings, you might be missing out on a lot of great people to hire’ [B].

People should not be put off expressing themselves through purple hair dye, septum piercings and visible tattoos in fear of not being able to find a job. The rule is outdated, completely unnecessary, and scrapping it would have no negative impact on companies whatsoever, and maybe even bolster both them and their employees.

Many regard tattoos, piercings, etc as ‘unprofessional’, yet this is nowhere near as unprofessional as judging potential employees based on their appearance.

[1] Becca Botorff in Medium, October 2, 2017 [https://medium.com/@becca.bottorff23/tattoos-and-piercings-expression-or-unprofessional-c83a4473c752]
[2] Brianna Noto in Central Scene, November 14, 2017 [https://centralscene.org/1740/student-life/tattoos-and-piercings-do-they-belong-in-the-workplace-in-2017/]
[3] Sylvia Asmar in Odyssey Online, June 15, 2017 [https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-tattoos-and-piercings-shouldnt-determine-professionalism]

TL;DR- Transgender women should be allowed to compete alongside cisgender women as inclusivity in sports should be priority.

Regardless of gender, athletes come in all different shapes and sizes with different strengths, and a person's physicality should not get in the way of them pursuing their dreams. As transgender triathlete Chris Mosier said, 'barring trans people from participation hurts everyone' as 'it’s unfair for us to police bodies and make determinations of who should be able to compete in sports' [1].

If a trans woman, for example, was turned away from a sports team purely because of her being transgender, it may be a very invalidating and distressing experience, especially if she was sent to a men's team (like Chloie Johnson was when CrossFit barred her from the women's team).

In addition to this, it has been demonstrated by science that 'people who transition do not retain the athletic benefits from the original gender' [2].

As stated by transgender footballer player Blair Hamilton:

"[hormone therapy] does take away your muscle mass, your
explosiveness. Your ratios from type-one to type-two fast-twitch fibres change – your body completely changes. I don’t think they realise how much of a change hormone therapy makes" [3].

Therefore, allowing women, whether trans or cis, to compete alongside one another is completely fair, and how it should be in order to achieve much needed equality and fairness in the world of sports.

Transgender women should not be excluded because trans women are women, and excluding trans women would inevitably uphold a harmful division between all women. Also, inclusivity and acceptance in a sports team is most important.

[1 & 3] Tijen Butler in Pink News, April 4, 2019 [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/04/04/transgender-athletes-why-fair-compete/]
[2] Michelle Castillo in The Week, March 12, 2014 [https://theweek.com/articles/449559/why-transgender-athletes-should-allowed-compete-gender-choice]

Poetry is definitely effective when read aloud; the audience gets to hear the impact of the words just as the poet intended.

However, there are many ways in which poetry can bring across more meaning when it's read quietly, similarly to the way we read them in high school English classes. This allows us to pick the poem apart and find deeper meanings, which are only visible if the poem is read individually.

If a poem was read aloud, it would also be easier to forget, and you may only really remember certain words and lines which jumped out at you. Whereas, with reading it in your head, these parts of the poem would still stand out just as effectively, plus you would be able to play them in your head again, connecting them to earlier sections and looking at them more deeply in the context of the entire poem.

Quite often, the poet writes with the intention of having their work performed aloud (or performing it themselves). Yet just as often, a poet would want their work published so the readers can take their time with it and analyse it, finding the implicit themes and messages in their own time.

This can be much more effective than trying to think about the message the poet is trying to get across whilst listening at the same time, which isn't always easy, and can be done more thoroughly through individual close examinations.

TL;DR- The influence of Franklin D Roosevelt was definitely huge, however I don't think he was the most influential president. My main reason for this is because I think that it's impossible to place all the US presidents together, all from different time periods, and different social/economic climates, and decide who the most influential was.

Roosevelt had influence in terms of inciting great change through the New Deal, etc. But the influence he had can't be compared to presidents from different times, when America was in different situations.

An example of this would be when the USA was 'born' in the late eighteenth century. During this time, Washington's influence was just as big as Roosevelt's, yet in different ways.

He may not have been as morally good as Roosevelt, but the influence he had at the time was immense, and cannot be measured against Roosevelt's impact because of these different time frames and different Americas.

The impact that Kennedy had is another example of why the US presidents can't be compared to one another. The Cold War was at a high point during his presidency- one of the most crucial events of the twentieth century. Also, the impact his assassination had on the west was huge.

However again, this is a different kind of influence on the world- you can't exactly compare the impact of JFK's assassination to Washington's 'building' of the USA, or Roosevelt's actions after the Great Depression.

Yes Roosevelt initiated some invaluable changes to the country, and Eleanor Roosevelt was highly influential also. But she was not her husband, and of all the US presidents were influential in some way or the other. The influence each one had was very different though, making it very difficult to measure them against each other.

TL;DR- Queerbaiting is the term used to describe ‘authors, writers, or showrunners attempting to attract an LGBTQ+ audience by hinting at same-sex relationships between characters, though they’re never actually consummated’ [1]. Among other things, (such as using it to make money) one reason why queerbaiting is not okay is because it denies healthy queer representation.

Media representation is important because seeing someone like yourself on TV and in films etc is a validating experience, and gives a greater sense of inclusivity to said piece of media, so it should definitely be encouraged.

Yet contrary to what many people believe, subtextually queer characters do not count as healthy LGBTQ+ representation, despite the fact that many franchises use queerbaiting as an excuse to say that they do have queer representation, only subtextually. However, for proper representation to exist, this subtext has to become text, not something left up to the consumer’s imagination.

LGBTQ+ people are only one of the many underrepresented groups in film and TV, with data showing us that in the 2017-2018 TV season, ‘there were 901 main characters on broadcast scripted primetime programming’ and just over 6% were identified as LGBTQ+ [2]. Even where there is queer representation, the character is often either killed off, sexualised, or portrayed through stereotypes, such as James Corden’s recent golden-globe nominated role of a stereotypical gay man in The Prom. Many people found this somewhat offensive, and many more would say that this is not healthy representation.

Queerbaiting also denies proper queer representation as it mocks LGBTQ+ people as well as potential queer relationships, reducing them to nothing more than jokes among the showrunners. This is evident in one of the most recent and famous queerbait relationships between Dean Winchester and Castiel in the CW’s Supernatural, which the producers have also ‘undoubtedly profited from’ [3].

In this case, some Supernatural showrunners would ‘consistently use offensive gay jokes in storylines or have the men care for each other but reinforce the “no homo” mold after each semi-romantic gesture’ [4]. Many fans are rightfully annoyed by this because the LGBTQ+ community deserve actual representation, not the crumbs and mockery which devalue queer relationships in the media.

In conclusion, one reason why queerbaiting is not okay is because LGBTQ+ people deserve proper representation, and queerbaiting does not count as this. As Uma Dodd states in Rife Magazine:

‘Queerbaiting denies LGBT representation, and not only tells LGBT people that they are not worth the unimaginably miniscule effort of writing in an LGBT character, but also that we, as a group of people, are not important enough for our existence on screen to be considered as anything more than fan-service’ [5].

[1 & 2] Bea Mitchell in Pink News, February 26, 2018 [https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/02/26/what-is-queerbaiting-everything-you-need-to-know/]
[3] Sadie Gennis in TV Guide, November 17, 2014 [https://www.tvguide.com/news/supernatural-queerbaiting-destiel-1089286/]
[4] Caroline Fenyo in Affinity Magazine, March 9, 2017 [http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/03/09/queerbaiting-in-the-media/]
[5] Uma Dodd in Rife Magazine, November 28, 2017 [https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2017/11/queerbaiting-and-the-issue-of-lgbt-representation-in-the-media/]

TL;DR- Gouache is great, however there are many ways in which watercolour is so much better. One of these reasons would be the freedom of watercolours; it doesn't matter if you make a mess of them due to their spontaneity.

With gouache, the colours are indeed very saturated and sharp, which although can be very effective, can also be quite difficult to work with, and hence are not a good choice for beginners to work with.

Watercolours, on the other hand, are much more forgiving when it comes to art. Even when they go wrong, dripping into each other etc, your painting still looks great, if not better due to the pretty and light colours mixing into each other.

As artist Rebecca Latham states, 'I’m sure I’m not the only artist to feel that the medium I work in has to work with me, not against me' [1]. Gouaches are more difficult to work with in this sense.

Additionally, when you go wrong with gouache, they dry before you can correct your mistake, whereas, with watercolour, their lightness makes them easy to paint over- all whilst still being as quick-drying as gouache. It's true that you can paint over gouache, but due to the vibrancy of them, it's much harder to conceal mistakes as they often show through.

It may be argued that you can go wrong with watercolour in the same way, but even accidental overlays, smudges, etc. look good on a watercolour painting- as if they're supposed to be there.

One of the most common things to use watercolours with is landscapes, which are imperfect anyway. For example, the spontaneity and flow you get with watercolours may mirror the unpredictable light and colour in a sunset reflecting off the sea, and gouache may not be able to do this as effectively (especially for beginners).

Gouache is great for colourful pieces of art, yet the forgiveness and effortless look of watercolour makes it much easier and less frustrating to work with, as it's properties make almost any painting look wonderful.

[1] Rebecca Latham in Latham Studios, August 2, 2013 [https://lathamstudios.com/rebecca/2013/08/5-reasons-why-i-love-working-with-watercolor/]

TL;DR- One reason for this would be their influence on children; both companies are aimed at families, however Studio Ghibli movies seem to be a much better influence on children due to their insightful themes and inspiring, relatable characters.

Firstly, Ghibli films explore important themes such as family and friendship rather than romance, in addition to even more mature themes such as military conflict and environmental exploitation (e.g. war in Howl’s Moving Castle and the effects of industrialisation in Princess Mononoke).

The ‘bad guys’ in Ghibli films are also more realistic and complex compared to Disney, which seems to only revolve around 'good vs evil'. Ghibli films, on the other hand, are characterised by their ‘more down-to-earth efforts to live and attain self-realization in a vast, often daunting, but never markedly hostile world’ [1] just like in real life- however the elements of fantasy are still prominent, with magical creatures and worlds.

This isn’t to say that Disney films have no deep yet child-friendly storylines and morals, as they definitely do, but Ghibli films are much more consistent in presenting these themes, and have been doing it since the 1980’s, whereas Disney have only been doing this recently.

The characters and plots of Ghibli movies are also much more relatable for young children, as the protagonists are usually children who face the same challenges a child would growing up (e.g. fitting in, relationships with family, and tougher scenarios such as enduring the illness of a loved one, etc.).

This makes them a better influence on a child because they would see characters just like themselves on screen, going through similar struggles, rather than adults overcoming very different challenges and getting married.

The parent/guardian characters in Ghibli films also seem to be more realistic and present, contrary to Disney parents, who are usually ‘either absent or the problem in some way or another. From repressive fathers to evil step-mothers’ [2]. Also, when a parent is absent in a Ghibli film, it is addressed throughout the story (e.g. the mother in hospital in My Neighbour Totoro).

Lastly, the heroines of Ghibli films are a better influence on children as they are presented as the actual heroines of the story who go on adventures and fight for what’s right without needing a man to save them. Although this is the case in some newer Disney films such as Moana and Mulan, the Disney princesses usually end up getting married (and while this can be lovely- it is definitely overdone).

As stated by Lexis Byrda in Odyssey Online, ‘I grew up watching Snow White get kissed out of a poison-induced coma by some guy who gets to do that stuff cause he's a prince. The damsel saved by a somewhat creepy male authority figure once again’ [3]. Although Snow White is a much earlier Disney film, these themes persist through many newer stories too.

As Hayao Miyazaki (co-founder and director) stated, ‘many of [his] movies have strong female leads – brave, self-sufficient girls that don’t think twice about fighting for what they believe in with all their heart. They’ll need a friend, or a supporter, but never a savior. Any woman is just as capable of being a hero as any man’ [4].

It’s true that both Disney and Studio Ghibli have a positive influence on children, and both companies have produced wonderful films. However, Ghibli movies seem to go above and beyond when it comes to creating family-friendly films that both represent and inspire children, in comparison to Disney, which is less consistent in this sense. This is one of the reasons I believe that they are better than Disney.

[1] Aline Dolinh in Film School Rejects, April 10, 2018 [https://filmschoolrejects.com/reflections-between-disney-and-studio-ghibli/]
[2] Bruce Lynn in Oh No they Didn’t, February 2, 2012 [https://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/66241023.html]
[3] Lexis Byrda in Odyssey Online, January 21, 2019 [https://www.theodysseyonline.com/studio-ghibli-better-than-disney]
[4] Stephanie Mulholland in The LDN Gal, February 19, 2017 [http://www.theldngal.co.uk/film-and-tv-series-reviews-and-news/why-studio-ghibli-is-better-than-disney/]

TL;DR- It’s true that Animal Crossing has loads of parallels to the capitalist society in which we live. However, it is a lot more than just capitalism with extra turnips, and is really only a cutesy capitalist stimulator if you want it to be.

There is an extensive list of things to do on Animal Crossing that have no relation to money and the ‘stalk market’ (which doesn’t exist in all the Animal Crossing games), such as making gardens and funfairs, decorating your home (extended in earlier games such as Animal Crossing: Happy Home Designer), surprise parties, K.K Slider’s shows, helping the museum by donating bugs and fish, the list is endless, and the wholesome, escapist nature of it all certainly outweighs the capitalist undertones.

Your friendship with villagers or islanders also has nothing to do with money, and is probably the most important part of the game. For example, give Raymond an orange and he’ll love you forever, or write a letter to Tangy and before you know it, you’re pen pals! There is nothing capitalist about that.

The strong element of generosity is what makes the island go round, not bells and capitalism, and this extends to real people too through gaming communities. For example 25-year-old Jennilyn from Los Angeles ‘says at least 20 people have given her rare ‘rusted parts’ so she could build an in-game robot as a birthday gift for her boyfriend, who is a key worker’ [1]. So it connects people in real life too, through kind acts, not competing over bells and who has the biggest house.

In conclusion, Animal Crossing is so much more than capitalism with turnips, it’s escapist, harmonious and highly therapeutic. If you don’t want to have a four-room house and millions of bells, effectively being the ruling class of your island/village, then you don’t have to (and you can ignore Tom Nook’s loans, he’s not going to evict you).

Nothing is stopping you from having a house the same size as the other villagers, helping others in communities, and basically ignoring overlord Tom Nook, who doesn’t even have a house himself.

[1] Amelia Tait in The Guardian, June 10, 2020 [https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/jun/10/animal-crossing-new-horizon-capitalist-dystopia-subreddit]

I definitely agree with you that a cake can be eaten with any utensil you like.

But the recent trend of cutting a cake with a wine glass is ridiculous and one I hate.
How do you clean the glasses afterwards? Isn't there a messy streak of icing and cake down the side of the glass (surely this would kill the aesthetic)?
Also what do you do with the awkward star-shaped middle bit of cake left over at the end? Because that can't be fun to scoop up!

TL;DR- Many U.S politicians have gained celebrity status, however I also think that this has many benefits.

Due to their celebrity status, it’s easier to learn more about them, and ‘know’ them as well as you would a celebrity. Bernie Sanders for example may be compared to a celebrity through his extensive use of social media etc.

Sanders posts a lot on social issues, as well as publicising, or starting up and then promoting many fundraisers etc (such as the recent meme t-shirt one). This has certainly allowed me to really get to know what he stands for, what his policies may be if he was ever in the race again, and his personality- this is the case for many social media users.

It’s a similar case for Biden and Harris; without their celebrity-like status and activity on Instagram, Twitter, etc. many voters (especially young voters) may not know as much about them as they could. Without this limelight, they may have got less votes in the recent presidential election, which brings me on to my next point.

Donald Trump is almost like a celebrity, with many of his actions heavily publicised. Through this limelight, the world sees how much of a terrible person he is, and without this celeb status, he may have even won the 2020 election due to people being unaware of many of his dreadful actions.

Although the media can be flawed, the celebrity status of American politicians definitely brings them into the public view, and connects them to us as we see them as real people with real lives. This is surely better than them being faceless politicians we only ever hear of if we go ahead and research them ourselves.

TL;DR- His work is mandatory in all British schools and most of the population knows his name. There is no denying that Shakespeare was a great poet and playwright, who had a massive influence on the English language- but does he really deserve all the acclaim he gets?

Contrary to popular belief, he is not as relevant and compelling as many people make out. His plays (only two of which are original stories) are labelled as timeless. However the old fashioned storylines and language he uses does not always translate well to the present; when his work is studied in schools, there is usually a translation next to the original text.

As Peter Beech states, going to see a Shakespeare play nowadays is usually a case of watching a ‘nervous cast elbow their way through 10 minutes of tedious wordplay in front of a baffled crowd’ [1]. Do we really venerate Shakespeare nowadays, or are we just told that's who we should admire out of habit, from when the dial on Shakespeare was ‘turned from ‘good writer’ to ‘god’’ [2] in the eighteenth century?

Additionally, his plays were not written to be read and ‘torn apart line by line by English teachers four centuries later’ [3], but rather acted for the enjoyment of the masses there at the time, as the scripts were nothing more than a template for the actors to work around. So, it can be argued that analysing his ‘high-brow language’ makes no sense- similar to music, ‘we don’t read the musical notes, we listen’ [4].

As well as his work now appearing pretentious and irrelevant, his work is very much overplayed, rebooted and resold, also ‘Shakespeare’ nowadays is narrowed down to ‘only a handful of plays’- the obvious ones such as Romeo and Juliet [5]. These tired plays are constantly studied in English classes across the U.K. as it’s a mandatory part of the curriculum. But surely English lessons would be more interesting without dreading difficult to read Shakespearean plays and poems, and instead, looking at these in your own time, or even just once, rather than every single year of secondary school.

Besides, other plays and poems can be picked apart just as much as Shakespeare’s, for instance, in college I found A Streetcar Named Desire and The Great Gatsby much more compelling and juicy when it came to analysis than Othello.

The way Shakespeare overshadows the world of literature and the school curriculum also marginalises writers from his own time (plus a century either way). An example of this would be Marguerite de Navarre, who I had never heard of until recently.

One of her most important works, Heptaméron (1558–59) consisted of ‘72 tales (out of a planned 100) told by a group of travellers delayed by a flood on their return from a Pyrenean spa’ [6]. Similarly to Shakespeare’s overdone work, her stories illustrated virtues such as honour, triumph and quick-wittedness.

It’s true that Shakespeare was a good writer, however ‘no more time should be spent focused on him than on Dante or Milton or Fitzgerald or Steinbeck or Dickinson’ [7].

[1 & 2] Peter Beech in The Guardian, April 14, 2009 [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/14/shakespeare-theatre]
[3 & 7] Alicia Fleming in Odyssey Online, May 16, 2016 [https://www.theodysseyonline.com/shakespeare-is-overrated]
[4 & 5] Edward Burns in The Guardian, January 30, 1999 [https://www.theguardian.com/books/1999/jan/30/shakespeare]
[6] "Margaret of Angoulême" in Encyclopedia Britannica, December 17, 2020 [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-of-Angouleme]

TL;DR - The word ‘equality’ is full of positive connotations, as it should be. However, it is not always enough in terms of creating a harmonious society where everyone has a fair chance. ‘Equality is the mantra of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights’ [1], but really, what we should be aiming for is equity.

Equality is good, but if we focus on it alone, we’ll fail to see patterns in society as it often disregards the different obstacles different people may have due to their race, gender, religion, ability, etc. Equity, on the other hand acknowledges that every human is different, and hence, for everyone to have fair chances in life, equality is not always enough.

An example of this would be flaws in feminism; ‘striving for the equality of women across all fields has its drawbacks. It fundamentally leaves no room for issues which are particular to women’ [2] for example, the struggles a Black woman may face would be worse than those of her white counterparts due to the racist society we live in.

Equity would address this (e.g. intersectional feminism), but equality would just give a step-up to everyone without properly looking into individual needs and situations, hence it skims over differences so it’s harder to notice patterns of discrimination.

Equality alone is a problem as it perpetuates privilege, only benefitting majorities and leaving many people out. This is because it ‘assumes that everyone starts from the same place with the same barriers’ [3]. Another analogy would be if the government decided to give every person in the U.K a free car.

On the surface this seems fair as it would benefit those who couldn’t necessarily afford one, but it would also give a step up to people who could, so their privilege would still exist despite the government's well meaning act of balancing out people's fortunes. That on top of addressing those who couldn’t drive.

All this also proves that sometimes we need to prioritise equity over equality which does not always suffice, and that's why actions such as affirmative action are good steps forward to a just society, giving everyone fair opportunities, and phasing out privilege (which is ‘allowed to continue when we wrap it up with actions of equality’) [4].

So in fact, equality would inevitably follow equity anyway. As Aashika Jashnani states, ‘have you ever thought that if people were treated fairly and impartially, we wouldn’t need to protest for greater equality?’ [5].

[1 & 4] Peter Tatchell in Peter Tatchell Foundation, January 9, 2018 [https://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/beyond-equality-why-equal-rights-are-not-enough/]
[2 & 3] Maryam Abdul-Kareem in Muslim Girl Life, n.d. [https://muslimgirl.com/heres-care-equity-equality/]
[5] Aashika Jashnani in Gulf News, April 29, 2017 [https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/why-equity-is-more-important-than-equality-1.2019105]

Although dogs can be lovely, companionable friends, there are many ways in which cats are better.

First of all, many dog lovers say that dogs are more friendly and extroverted around humans, which is true, as dogs are generally more excitable. However sometimes it’s nice to have a pet who is more relaxed, who isn’t constantly barking for attention or whenever something moves outside the window.

Because of this calmness and lack of need for constant fuss, people often assume that cats do not care about their humans. Yet this is not necessarily true: when they feel like it, a cat can curl up on your lap for hours or softly mew when it wants to be stroked (instead of an ear-splitting bark for attention), and this selective need for attention can give both cat and human valuable time to get on with other things.

Also, on arrival home from work, a cat would quietly wander up to you and rub against your ankles lovingly as a greeting, instead of bounding up to the front door, jumping up over-excitedly and swinging its head back when you try and pat it. Cats certainly show affection just as much as dogs, however in a much more relaxed manner, which often gets confused for disinterest.

Cats are also much more low-maintenance, as they effectively take care of themselves (e.g. grooming, exercise, etc). While it’s true that vet bills aren’t going to be any cheaper than a dogs would be, the cat owner will definitely save money in terms of trips to the groomers, and dog-sitters, because cats don’t generally need these expenses.

For example if you went on a trip for a few days, you would need to book a sitter for the dog, while a cat would be quite content with the house to itself for a bit- all it would need is it’s litter tray and a big bowl of food. Dogs are more demanding in this sense, needing play time and walks twice a day, not to mention the chaotic excitement they burst into if you even mention the word ‘walk’.

Dogs are lovely creatures and I love them, but cats can give you just as much affection and company whilst being very low-maintenance at the same time.

It would benefit children in many ways if mainstream education started at an age later than five years old- which is a relatively young age for children to be starting school, and can have negative impacts on their mental health.

In Finland, children start comprehensive school at seven, and in 88% of countries around the world, children usually start mainstream education at six or seven [1]. But in the UK and the USA, five is the age a child usually starts school, in addition to earlier years pre-school and nursery before the age of five in the UK, which can be damaging both long and short term.

There is the argument that ‘kids should be kids’- why should we have to send our children to school at an age so young that they could still be enjoying themselves and learning simultaneously? A study by the Too Much Too Soon campaign shows that ‘the longer young children can spend in holistic, playful and creatively focused environments, the more likely they are to develop happily and healthily’ [2], especially disadvantaged and summer-borns, as it allows them a longer time to develop and mature.

So, letting children learn and explore through play in a home environment, (whether in the woods, observing twigs and leaves, or in the kitchen playing with pots and pans) can benefit the child much more than the new and oftentimes mentally distressing experience of starting comprehensive school at such a young age.

As well as children starting mainstream education too early, they are also tested at a very young age- another thing which can negatively affect them psychologically. According to recent research, only ‘52% of four and five-year-olds assessed at the end of the early years foundation stage were judged to have reached a 'good' level of development’ [3].

Four or five years old is too young to be testing a child, and this pressure to do well puts both parent and child under stress, as some parents over-worry about how their child is doing compared to others in their class, when it’s not always a good idea to compare children to other children.

While it’s true that sending a child to school at the age of five may alleviate pressure on some parents (e.g. more time to themselves or to be getting on with work in their busy lives), it’s also true that putting children in mainstream education ‘as early as we do is merely providing a creche for overworked parents at best, and giving the children a poor start in education at worst’. This is because even if it is convenient, the child may simply be not ready [4].

It may seem like a couple of years wouldn’t make a long-term impact on a child’s life and development, and that it wouldn't hurt to send a child to school a couple of years earlier than other countries.

However, especially in the earlier stages of child development, every year counts, hence pushing the age of starting school to six or seven instead of five would be highly beneficial, not only to the child’s mental health, but also their long-term development.

[1] The Finnish Education System, May 11, 2020 [https://www.infofinland.fi/en/living-in-finland/education/the-finnish-education-system]
[2&3] Wendy Ellyatt in The Guardian, December 20, 2013 [https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/dec/10/school-starting-age-five-six-uk-eu]
[4] Sean Coughlan in BBC News, February 8, 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7234578.stm]

Catcalling is a problem that society has glossed over for centuries, and contrary to what too many people believe, it is not a compliment. It is in fact creepy and objectifying, and it perpetuates dangerous ideas which may escalate to more serious sexual harassment.

First of all, catcalling is not consensual, making it a very intimidating and uncomfortable thing to experience whilst simply walking down the street. Many argue that it is only flirtation, but compliments shouldn’t make the recipient uncomfortable, or feel like they’re in danger.

According to recent research, 99% of women in America say they’ve been a victim of street harassment, while 100% of women in France say they have been harassed on public transport at least once [1]. Most of the time this harassment is groups of people yelling sexually explicit/objectifying comments at others (usually men hollering at women).

In addition to the discomfort catcalling causes people in the moment, it can also have a long-term impact on the recipient’s mental health, as explained by youth charity Ditch the Label:

These ‘compliments’ and unwanted attention that society told me I should be enjoying didn’t make me feel so good inside. In fact, it had a significant detrimental effect on my mental health, relationships with others and a sense of self-worth, just like the effects it’s having now for so many young girls around the world [2].

Self-worth is definitely affected by catcalling, due to the objectifying nature of it. People argue that catcalling is flattery, but there is a difference between flirting and harassment- and nobody really wants to be objectified, let alone by strangers whose ‘compliments’ are purely based on appearance.

Even after the ‘compliment’ is given and the recipient shows disinterest and/or valid fear, they are usually ‘subject to being called ugly, or a bitch, whore, slut or whatever else rolls off the rejectee’s tongue amidst his unwarranted angst’ [3].

As well as impacting the individual, catcalling carries on outdated and harmful social ideas such as male dominance and even perpetuates rape culture, as some cases of catcalling and other street harassment escalate as they are often based on hoping that it will ‘lead to a sexual encounter’ [4].

The sexual basis of catcalling is rooted in the idea of the ‘male-gaze’- the construct that women dress the way they do to attract men. As Kelly Cazzetto states in her article: ‘The solution is not for women to cover up...it needs to become the norm to think of women as people and not an entitlement’ [5] -which is what catcalling is embedded in.

Many people think that strongly opposing catcalling is ‘political correctness gone mad’, but it isn’t exactly difficult to not catcall people. Why should we ignore sexist verbal harassment when it’s only going to perpetuate outdated patriarchal ideas?

Carrying on the normalisation of street harassment is damaging, but confronting instances of it such as catcalling ‘is the important first step towards tackling all types of verbal and physical hate crimes against (usually) women’ [6].

[1 & 2] Ariel Julia Hairston in Elite Daily, March 5, 2016 [https://www.elitedaily.com/women/catcalling-men-problem/1397705]
[3] Ditch the Label, March 8, 2017 [https://www.ditchthelabel.org/a-females-perspective-on-catcalling/]
[4 & 5] Kelly Cazzetto in Her Campus April 16, 2018 [https://www.hercampus.com/school/kutztown/catcalling-not-compliment]
[6] Catcalling: is it Really That Bad?, n.d. [https://unapologeticacademic.com/2018/10/03/catcalling-is-it-really-that-bad/]

Valentine’s day is just another excuse for big companies to make money from mass-produced teddy bears, roses and chocolates. While it’s true that this is the case all year round with other holidays, Valentine’s day has no other meaning in the modern age aside from expensive gift-giving, pressure, competition, and the filling the pockets of large corporations.

It can be argued that Valentine’s is a celebration of love, but this is something we should be celebrating all year round, or on anniversaries instead- where couples could celebrate their relationship on their own special date, rather than every couple competing for restaurant tables on the same commercialised day every year.

Valentine’s day is also a day where sudden shows of material affection are expected, so surely surprising your significant other with heart-shaped pancakes in bed on any other day but February 14th would be much more spontaneous.

Also, here there would be no pressure because of the surprise element, unlike the overrated ‘surprises’ on Valentine’s day. People should do nice, romantic things because they want to, not because of pressure from society and big companies thrusting pink and red teddies in your face.

There is also the argument here that your relationship’s stability shouldn’t hang on to one commercialised day: as stated in the University of Exeter newspaper, we shouldn’t be taking ‘someone for granted 364 days of the year and suddenly decide to buy overpriced chocolates’ [1].

The promotion of over-expensive gift giving is also often sprinkled with heteronormative, gender-role reinforcing undertones, which overly focuses on women receiving the gifts and men buying them. Research informs us (National Retail Federation) that ‘men spend an average of $229.94, while women spend about $97.77’ [2].

Also, advertisements are usually aimed at women receiving presents, such as Bath & Body Works’ website in 2019, which featured a 'huge banner saying “She’ll love love love you forever", and this over-focus on women on Valentine’s Day isn’t new' [3].

Additionally, this competition of ‘who can get the best gift’ puts on even more stress, as it's ‘very unlikely that both sides will strike up the perfect balance hence leading to a 'you don't love me as much as I love you' type argument’ [4].

Valentine’s day being a Capitalist holiday doesn’t mean it should be scrapped, it’s lovely to celebrate your relationship and spoil your loved ones. However nowadays it’s just a commercialised day reliant on material possessions and restaurant reservations, when a ‘celebration of your love’ should really be more than just buying something [5].

[1] Grace Proctor in Exeposé, February 14, 2017 [https://exepose.com/2017/02/14/is-valentines-day-just-a-capitalist-holiday/]
[2] Sammy Jo Cienfuegos in Hilltop Views, February 11, 2019 [https://www.hilltopviewsonline.com/17965/viewpoints/capitalist-holiday-pushes-gender-norms-onto-unknowing-consumers/]
[3] Belicia Chevolleau in The Varsity, February 9, 2019 [https://thevarsity.ca/2019/02/09/opinion-valentines-day-is-a-celebration-of-capitalism/]
[4] Darragh Berry in Lovin.IE, February 6, 2018 [https://lovin.ie/lifestyle/valentines-day-banned]
[5] Ely Willard in The Wellesley News, February 12, 2020 [https://thewellesleynews.com/2020/02/12/valentines-day-is-a-capitalist-scam]

The 'I have nothing to hide' argument is deeply flawed, primarily due to the fact that many people accused of committing a crime (due to surveillance in this case) are actually innocent.

Not all police officers are bad people, however the police system itself is corrupt in many areas, for example how people are often wrongly accused of criminal activity, such as the huge problem of racial profiling.

Racial profiling has been happening for centuries, and it came into the light of mainstream media again last summer, following the murder of George Floyd. The frightening statistics reveal how big of a problem racial profiling is, for example how At least ‘70 police departments in the United States arrest Black people/African-Americans at 10 times the rate they arrest people who are not black’ [1].

Surveillance plays a huge part in racist accusations, therefore, it is wrong to say that surveillance only hurts wrongdoers while people are being racially profiled and even losing their lives over crimes they did not commit.

In addition to problems such as racial profiling, there is also the issue of actual criminals getting away with crimes despite surveillance, for example CCTV evidence getting ‘lost’ if it was a wealthy criminal in a position powerful enough to cover their tracks. So, in some cases, wrongdoers who know they can get away with crime due to their social standing, are not even worried about surveillance.

There is also a major fault in the ‘I have nothing to hide’ when thinking about surveillance argument, as addressed by Moxie Marlinspike, who gave the example of Orwellian-style surveillance in her article, stating:

Police already abuse the immense power they have, but if everyone’s every action were being monitored, and everyone technically violates some obscure law at some time, then punishment becomes purely selective. Those in power will essentially have what they need to punish anyone they’d like, whenever they choose, as if there were no rules at all. [2]

[1] Louise Gaille in Vittana, March 22, 2017, [https://vittana.org/24-frightening-racial-profiling-statistics]
[2] Moxie Marlinspike in Wired, June 13, 2013 [https://www.wired.com/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/]

There are so many other reasons why a pregnant person may choose to have an abortion, all of which are entirely valid, as the person carrying the infant should be priority; it is their body so only they can decide what to do with it.

For example, the state of the pregnant person's mental health should be taken into account- just because their life is not threatened, doesn't mean their state of mind, for example, is not at risk.

An example of this would be if the pregnant person could not afford to raise a child- surely it would be better to have an abortion than risk both parent and child's happiness by bringing a baby into the world who would change that, and as a result, have a more difficult life themselves, living in poverty (in this example- there are many other instances of pregnancy/birth impacting well-being).

If abortion was illegal unless the pregnant person's life was in danger, there would also be an increase in back-street abortions, which are life-threatening in themselves.

Currently, in places where abortion is illegal, many turn to these dangerous illegal clinics, which can be a very traumatic experience as well as physically unsafe. So, if a law was in place making abortions were illegal unless the pregnant person's life was in danger, it would be likely that their life would be in even more danger.

Finally, with this law, there would be much confusion and loop holes regarding what counts as a life in danger- would the only pregnant person's physical health be taken into account, or would their mental state be factored into it also (e.g. depression due to pregnancy/birth resulting in suicide)?

The pregnant person should be allowed to make their own decisions, and so should be trusted if they think that having a baby would make the situation harder for both of them.

Switching to a vegan diet/lifestyle can be very beneficial to the environment, your health, and other things. However, there are many reasons why veganism is a privilege that not everybody can access.

One of the main factors that may prevent somebody from becoming vegan is the unavailability of vegan staple foods, such as alternative foods which replenish vitamins just as meat and dairy does.

This is more of a problem in rural areas of the world, with only small food shops and markets, often lacking in vegan diet staples. This is evident in the research conducted by Deb Jarrett in the markets of the rural Indian village she lives in.

She found that vegan, vitamin rich staple foods labelled by the west as ‘easy and accessible’, such as beans, kale and whole-wheat pasta were hard to come by: ‘Vitamin A: Sweet Potatoes – no, carrots – seasonal, cantaloupe – no, red peppers – no’ [1]. It is important to remember that not all fruits and vegetables grow in all places, hence veganism is more accessible depending heavily on the foods available in one’s area.

Even where vegan foods are available, they are usually considerably more expensive than non-vegan products, particularly vegan-friendly alternatives which are key to replenishing vitamins and nutrients, just as meat and dairy does.

For example, it would be more likely for people struggling with poverty to focus on the shelf life and efficiency of food rather than whether it's vegan (e.g. a tin of corned beef may have longer shelf life and more protein than a pack of falafels, and is generally cheaper).

The example Katie Kenyon gives in her article is a low-income single mother of three, who ‘by no fault of her own but rather in virtue of the system which veganism condemns but also benefits from, lacks both the financial and educational resources to sustain a vegan diet for her whole family’ [2].

Most vegans take supplements as part of their diet, which can also be very expensive, and yet they’re necessary in a vegan diet to ensure enough minerals are going into the body, such as iron, zinc, etc. Without these vitamins, it is more likely for a vegan diet to cause health problems such as iron deficiency.

Health problems are also often a factor which may prevent someone from going vegan. For example people who suffer from coeliac disease, or have allergies to foods such as soy or nuts (essential staples in a vegan diet).

According to studies, one in thirteen people in the USA have some sort of nut allergy, so this is a fairly common barrier stopping people from going vegan [3].

With health problems preventing the consumption of essential vegan staple foods, it would be very difficult to maintain a healthy and fulfilling vegan diet. So to conclude, veganism should not be aggressively promoted because it is a privilege, and there are many people who simply cannot go vegan due to economic, social and personal reasons.

[1] Deb Jarrett in Elephant Journal, September 16, 2016 [https://www.elephantjournal.com/2016/09/veganism-is-a-privilege-not-a-cure/]
[2] Katie Kenyon in Shoutout UK, August 4, 2020 [https://www.shoutoutuk.org/2020/08/04/veganism-a-choice-or-a-privilege/]
[3] 37 Important Nut Allergy Statistics, n.d. [https://healthresearchfunding.org/37-important-nut-allergy-statistics/]

It may have lost its planetary status in 2006, being demoted as a ‘Trans-Neptunian Object’ of the Kuiper Belt, but there are many reasons as to why Pluto still deserves to be considered a planet.

According to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a there are three criteria a celestial body must meet to be considered a planet: that it orbits a star, is large enough to pull itself into a round shape by its own gravity, and that it clears its orbit of other objects (gravitationally dominant)- the last of which Pluto fails to meet.

However, it can be argued that the IAU criteria is flawed as it focuses too much on the activity of the planet, rather than the planet itself (the geophysical argument)- which after all, according to University College London, is what planetary science is about [1]. As physicist Phillip Metzger states, it is like saying ‘a tiger is not a mammal unless it’s able to clear away all the other predators on the island where it lives’ [2].

In addition to this, the IAU criteria is often applied inconsistently by many scientists, who call many celestial bodies ‘planets’ despite them not fitting the three rules- if this is the case, why is Pluto more often than not excluded from being called a planet? Also, there is much dispute regarding whether the IAU rules of planetary status are even necessary, as they have little impact on the study of astronomy.

As well as the scientific side of things, Pluto should be considered a planet purely as an act of appreciation as it is widely admired on the internet as an underdog, and by schoolchildren: after Pluto was demoted in 2006, many children wrote to institutions such as the Natural History Museum expressing their concern [3].

Pluto’s importance was also bolstered after data was gathered through the New Horizons flyby in 2015, which revealed that Pluto was actually ‘far more complex’ and larger than scientists first thought. The New Horizons principal investigator, Alan Stern, also refuted the IAU after this venture, stating that the only reason why Pluto lost its planetary status was due to its distance from the sun, and that if Earth was in its place, it would also be excluded [4].

New Horizons also brought us high definition photographs of Pluto for the first time, showing off its dynamic colours of blue, deep red and yellow, gaining even more admiration on the internet. So, due to it’s fame and importance to both humans and the solar system, Pluto definitely deserves it’s full planetary status back.

[1] UCL Department of Space and Climate Physics, n.d. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/planetary-science/what-planetary-science]
[2] Denise Chow in Mach, September 21, 2018 [https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/should-pluto-be-planet-again-new-study-reignites-contentious-debate-ncna910836]
[3] Calla Cofield in Space.com, July 13, 2015 [https://www.space.com/36214-planet-definition-includes-pluto-most-moons.html]
[4] Lauren Kent in CNN Space and Science, August 24, 2019 [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/24/world/pluto-no-longer-planet-space-scn/index.html]

Social media definitely has a lot of negative psychological effects, however I do think that the positive outcomes of social media outweigh the negatives. Firstly, you are very right about people comparing themselves to others on social media, but there are also many ways in which people build each other up on social media also, both friends (e.g. commenting nice things on a friends Instagram post) and strangers (e.g. your artwork receiving praise from people you don't even know on Tumblr).

Additionally, there are many campaigns promoting self-love and not to compare yourself to others- campaigns which are mainly spread and continued through social media, such as #ImNoAngel and #LoseHateNotWeight [1].

Learning to be proud of who you are and not compare yourself to others is not the only thing social media teaches us. It can be extremely informative in other areas, such as educating us on current affairs. If it wasn't for social media, I for one would have never known about many things: how awful police brutality is in the USA for example, the UK government's unacceptable response to feeding schoolchildren, the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in China, and, if it wasn't for Pinterest I would never have found out about feminism when I was fifteen years old either.

This educational side of social media is also very helpful in making the world a better place. An example of this would be how awareness threads, GoFundMe pages, links to petitions, stream to donate videos, and more are spread around the world through social media. Not only does all this promote good causes, but also helps in terms of psychological effects as people start to see social media as a safe-space, a place of support, or a place for knowing that they are not alone, and that other people are going through similar experiences to them, or actively trying to support them.

Even meme pages and social media sites such as Tiktok for example can provide comfort in times where you are feeling alone or are just in need of a laugh, or even just a funny cat video to give you a little serotonin (e.g. LGBTQ+ meme pages that queer people can laugh with and relate to when there may not be anywhere like this for them in real life).

As mentioned before in this opinion, social media is also beneficial to your mental health due to the connections it creates. It can be argued that you can still keep in touch with people without social media through telephone calls etc, however, sometimes it can be easier and less nerve-wracking to just connect with faraway friends by messaging on a WhatsApp group chat for example, where more than one person can converse and there is less need to call everyone to catch up individually, which also fits in better with busy modern life.

Social media does have it's many negative psychological effects, but the positives it can bring, not only in terms of improving one's mental health, but also educating and creating a sense of unity, greatly outweigh the negatives.

[1] Erin McKelle in Bustle, April 15, 2015 (https://www.bustle.com/articles/75539-9-body-positive-social-media-campaigns-that-are-changing-how-we-perceive-beauty-both-in-and)

This is a really interesting argument, and to a large extent, I completely agree with you; life can be easier for you if you're deemed 'pretty' (e.g like you said, with job offers, being perceived as smarter, etc).

However, sometimes being 'pretty' comes with difficulties and uncomfortable social scenarios, rather than privileges. As Rachel Lewis states, 'we all know of the infamous cat callers and drink spikers’ whom tend to prey on 'pretty' people more [1], and this is just one example of the negatives outweighing the positives.

Superficial 'attractiveness' can also be a disadvantage rather than a privilege in the world of online dating, and dating in general, due to people prioritising looks when searching for a relationship. This may seem like an advantage at first, but relationships based off being attracted mainly to each other's looks rather than personalities are generally not healthy ones, surely finding love which is mostly based off personality attractions would be more lasting and healthy.

There's also the argument that being 'pretty' can undermine one's hard-work, and this is something prominent in society that is not addressed enough. For example actresses are often bombarded with questions about their appearance in interviews rather than their actual acting talent and experiences, such as Scarlett Johansson, who was asked by American Idol host, Ryan Seacrest if she was going to wear the same shoes she wore on the red carpet to the award show [2]. This is something that happens frequently, especially if you're considered 'pretty' as society expects you to keep up these appearances.

Finally, there is an idea rooted in modern society that 'pretty' equals unintelligent, as people are labelled 'bimbos' (however, this term is being reclaimed in a more positive light). Nevertheless, the 'pretty' = unintelligent stereotype is still a common assumption both in media and in real life. So, even though 'pretty privilege' exists to an extent, there are also many downsides, which arguably outweigh the advantages.

[1] Rachel Lewis in The Perils of Pretty Privilege, December 4, 2020
[2] Brittany Sims in The Things, October 15, 2020

Britain has had a monarchy for centuries, yet in recent years there has been more of a debate regarding whether we still need it. The British monarchy may be iconic, but in the twenty-first century, it is no longer a necessity, only creating an undemocratic, elitist atmosphere, and costing the taxpayer and country a considerable amount of money.

One of the most common arguments in favour of keeping the monarchy is that the royal family attracts hundreds and thousands of tourists, either people visiting Buckingham palace, or spectating events such as royal weddings. However, it’s not necessarily the royal family/monarchy that attracts tourists, but rather, the buildings- such as Windsor castle, which attracted ‘1.65 million visitors in fiscal year 2018/2019’ [1]

Without a monarchy, there is little reason why people would stop visiting these monumental buildings, for example, Windsor Castle still brings in thousands of visitors even when there are no royals currently residing there. According to a recent study, the Queen’s residences combined attracted ‘2.8 million people in 2016’ [2], while the Palace of Versailles, an empty palace where French Monarchs such as Louis XIV used to rule ‘receives over 7.5 Million visitors each year’ [3].

Without a royal family, these palaces may attract even more people as it would be likely that they would be opened to the public similarly to museums (which also attract millions), and visitors could look back and remember the history of the royal family, so the ‘unity’ that the monarchy brings would still be present.

There are also reasons why we do not need the British Monarchy anymore, one of them being that having a monarchy goes against the democratic nature of the country. It is widely believed that the royal family’s role in society is purely ceremonial.

However this is not the case: the Queen has the power to issue passports, declare war, grant honours and mercy, commission officers into the army, and much more, and so will the monarch who comes after her, who of course, will be next in the hereditary line (a form of succession which has been disputed for centuries).

As well as being undemocratic, having a monarchy also ‘cements privilege at the top of state and society’ suggesting that ‘“pedigree” still matters in Britain’ [4], so it can be argued that a monarchy is only prolonging outdated ideas of elitism, when in this day and age, we should be moving forward, and challenge the age-old idea that ceremony and continuity is always a good thing.

The expenses of having a monarchy are also considerably large, costing the British taxpayer money for aspects of royal life that are hardly necessary, such as when Prince Andrew ‘spent 5,000 pounds in taking a "taxpayer-funded helicopter" from his home in Windsor to play a round of golf in Kent’ [5].

This may not seem like a lot compared to other royal family expenses paid for through taxation, yet it comes across as quite tone-deaf, as royals are flying around unnecessarily while other people in the country can’t afford to feed their family, hence widening the class divide which still exists today.

Also, while it’s true that the royals do significant of work for good causes, it can be argued that the hours put in do not add up, according to a Republic spokesperson, there were ‘4,700 engagements last year’ and divided between the royals, they would have worked ‘less than an hour a day each’ [6].

Although a monarchy was important as the main government of society in past centuries, nowadays, having a monarchy is not necessary. This is because tourism income could easily continue to flourish without the royal family, and maintaining said monarchy and the ceremony surrounding it does not benefit us as much as one would think, and comes across as elitist and tone-deaf in a modern age of people partly paying for the royal upkeep.

[1] Statista Research Department, Nov 26, 2020 (https://www.statista.com/statistics/373081/uk-royal-tourism-admission-numbers-by-establishment/)
[2] Claire Haven-Tang in iNews, December 4, 2017 (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/fact-check-tourists-visit-britain-royal-family-108344)
[3] Heather Hall in Ferreting Out the Fun, April 22, 2019 (https://www.ferretingoutthefun.com/2016/02/26/versailles-visitor-tips/)
[4] Peter Harris in National Interest, March 12, 2020 (https://nationalinterest.org/feature/backwards-britain-why-it%E2%80%99s-time-abolish-monarchy-132407)
[5] Michael Basger in Blasting News, November 21, 2016 (https://uk.blastingnews.com/politics/2016/11/the-royal-family-do-we-still-need-them-001265063.html)
[6] From Pitchfork Cosmonauts, n.d. (http://pitchforkcosmonaut.org/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-a-monarchy-in-britain/)

You have a really good point about making literary criticisms through a modern lens to show how far we've come, and I think that this is something that could definitely be looked at in secondary school/college English lit classes as well! For example, in GCSE we were often told to bear in mind the context of the time, which is true, but I think it would've been interesting to look more into modern perspectives, maybe even essay questions regarding them, instead of only briefly mentioning it in essays or lessons. This is also because it broadens how we look at a text, bringing in themes and interpretations that wouldn't have been thought of or allowed when the literature was written (e.g. themes of homosexuality in The Great Gatsby), hence arguably opening doors within literature that haven't been opened before, largely exploring and expanding the literary canon.

Like you said, homework plays a big part in adding to the stress already on young people. The point about 'kids being kids' is very good as I think the most controversial age a child could be given homework is primary school age, where children should be growing and learning through play. Maybe in high school coming up to GCSEs or equivalent homework would make more sense, but children getting homework as young as 7 years old is hardly beneficial to their education, and can also put stress on the parent-child relationship (parents helping young children with homework can be a frustrating event for both).

For a long time, statues have been society’s way of celebrating or commemorating people such historical figures. But just because statues often depict historical figures, it does not necessarily make them ‘history’, and taking them down reflects changing values and attitudes in society, not erasing or denying the history these statues may represent.

Firstly, statues themselves are not ‘history’, but instead, the glorification of people who had an impact on history. History is something that we learn about and learn from, but statues do not really teach us about the historical figure, or anything about the past, except perhaps what the person looked like, and the fact that they were widely admired when the statue was made.

In order to find out about the historical figure depicted through the statue and the history around them, one would have to research them themselves, or read the plaque sometimes built underneath the statue. But apart from this, statues are not a source of education; we cannot learn about history just by looking at statues, and though they may pique our interest, alone, they do not teach us anything. Therefore, taking statues down does not deny history, but rather changes the way in which we are presented with it. As Nicholas Grossman states, ‘Statues are perhaps the least impactful method of teaching history’ [1].

In addition to statues of historical figures not actually counting as history, taking them down is also not ‘denying’ or ‘erasing’ a historical figure, but instead merely taking them off the pedestal on which they were placed when they were made.

This can be a very good thing, as it shows society moving on and/or condemning actions committed by the historical figure. An example of this removal of statues would be that of Edward Colston in Bristol last summer, which was quite rightfully taken down by anti-racism protesters. This was the right thing to do, as an immortalisation of a slave-trader has no place in the twenty-first century.

Some may argue that we have to put the lives of these historical figures into the context of the time in which they lived. This is true to an extent, as we can’t expect great historical figures to live up to modern standards. However people are still celebrated in the form of statues despite being absolutely terrible people, such as Christopher Columbus, who is still depicted as a ‘hero’ even today.

As previously mentioned, taking down statues is not denying history, it’s just changing the way in which history is presented to us. The glorification of people like Colston and Columbus do not belong in the twenty-first century, but history can still be learned without their statues existing, statues which only prolong the idea that they should be celebrated.

According to Serina Sandhu, even historians say that ‘statues themselves are not history – rather they are a symbol about the time in which they were first erected, and from this we can conclude that taking down statues of historical figures is not erasing or denying history’ [2]. The only thing that taking down statues such as that of Colston erases is the celebrated public memory of the person, so really, instead of denying history, the removal of these statues is, in itself, an act of history, and, as Katie Donington states, ‘a part of the historical process of the country coming to terms with that history’ [3].

[1] Nicholas Grossman in Arc Digital Media, August 19th, 2017 (https://arcdigital.media/your-arguments-against-removing-the-statues-are-bad-f328b7b57809)
[2] Serina Sandhu in iNews, June 12th, 2020 (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/statues-uk-history-edward-colston-slave-traders-pulled-down-removed-protests-443543)
[3] Serina Sadhu in iNews, June 8th, 2020 (https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/edward-colston-statue-bristol-monument-pulled-down-historic-england-reinstated-440610)

School is a place of learning and preparing children for the future, however as well as dipping into social issues such as racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, etc when relevant to the subject (e.g. learning a little about women’s rights in a World War One history lesson), it would be beneficial in many ways if primary and secondary schools set aside a compulsory class to learn about discrimination and social issues in more detail, how they effect people, the history behind them, and how we can make change.

Some may argue that primary school children are too young to learn about such things. However, even from a young age many children experience prejudice and discrimination, whether at school (with problems from institutional racism, to lack of representation) or elsewhere. In fact, almost ‘88,000 racist incidents were recorded in Britain's schools between 2007 and 2011’ alone [1], while according to research, over half of teenage girls in school have ‘reported experiencing some form of overt academic sexism, particularly in the form of discouraging comments about their abilities in maths or science’ [2]. Teaching children about social issues may help to combat them, as not only the children but the teachers would develop their understanding of them, and the choices they can make every day to prevent inequality.

Having classes dedicated to teaching children on such subjects would be beneficial in primary schools also because of the importance of upbringing. Upbringing plays a key factor in shaping a child’s values and worldly view, for example, a child with a racist parents may carry these ideas on whether they mean to or not. Yet, educating children on the damaging effects of discrimination would help to counteract these harmful, intolerant ideas a child may pick up from adults and media, hence raising a more open-minded generations and thus helping to eliminate everyday discrimination and prejudice.

If such a class was introduced, it would be just as important in secondary schools as well as primary, as students may understand such subjects more through years and experience (e.g. becoming aware of prejudices they may encounter, privileges they may or may not have, realising their sexual orientation, etc). Education on social issues here would be just as important, as teenagers would also be more mature and hence able to learn about more complicated aspects and history that may be unsuitable for primary school children.

Having a class dedicated to educating children on issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc. would greatly benefit students as they learn more about the current state of societies across the world, and would also help to eradicate discrimination in society as young generations would grow up aware of how divisive and destructive discrimination can be, something we have previously gained purely through experience and exposure.

[1] Divya Talwar in BBC News, May 23rd, 2012 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18155255)
[2] Adam A. Rogers in Psychology Today, April 16th, 2020 (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thriving-teens/202004/sexism-and-school)

These are all very good ideas! Peaceful protesting can lead to great change as seen throughout history. Although, sometimes in the past, more militant protests have increased the impact, such as the Suffragette movement developing from the more peaceful Suffragists. Then again, that was over 100 years ago and there has been changes in society since then

Children’s beauty contests have always been controversial, from baby contests in the twentieth century, to pageants still existing nowadays across countries such as the USA and Australia. With the many negative effects they have on many children, they should be discontinued.

Firstly, toxic beauty standards are sustained by practices such as children’s beauty pageants, and this causes both long and short term damage to pageant children. In many societies, there is a deep-rooted idea that certain aspects of one’s appearance are ‘desirable’, while others, such as acne and other imperfections are considered ‘ugly’, and ideas such these ideas are maintained by children’s beauty pageants, as children are put in heavy makeup unsuitable for young children, fake tan, plucking eyebrows, bleaching teeth and even dieting, which not only bolsters these dangerous ideas, but also leads to problems such as eating disorders in later life. According to a study conducted in 2005 by researcher, Anna L. Wonderlich, ‘body perception, depression, or self-esteem issues, [were higher in] participants who had partaken in childhood beauty pageants expressed greater body dissatisfaction’ [1], although this is still very much the case even today.

However this is not the only way in which beauty pageants for children are damaging. Children in pageants also experience immense pressure from multiple sources, one of them being their parents. Some parents use their children as a means of achieving what they could not in their own youth: ‘watching your child being admired is a definite ego boost for many parents’ [2]. This, as well as general competitiveness, can severely harm pageant children’s mental well-being, in addition to their relationship with parents, as they are constantly judged and compared. On top of this, in children’s beauty pageants, the media, exposure, and pressure to perform well is immense; not only do pageant children face toxicity from other contestants to be the ‘best’, but the stress of being televised can severely impact their mental health, for example in shows such as TLC’s Toddlers and Tiaras. This televising also boosts media attention on these pageants, which can be very dangerous as it can be widely accessed.

From the social construct of beauty standards to intense pressure, children’s beauty pageants can severely damage children’s well-being, both during their years competing, and in later life. If they were to be banned, issues such as eating disorders and beauty standards would definitely decrease, and children who would have previously been coaxed into them by parents would have better mental health and relationships with said parents, and also, better security from the dangers of media attention.

[1] Nistha Bade Shrestha in Ethos News, October 10, 2018 (http://ethosnews.com/2018/10/10/eating-disorders-among-child-beauty-queens/)
[2] Apt Parenting (https://aptparenting.com/child-beauty-pageants-pros-cons)