Oliviabooth9

Tl;dr: People who shop fast fashion often have little other option in the pressures of today's society to 'fit in' (especially on low budgets). Society has made it so that you will get shamed for shopping at charity stores and shamed for buying cheap clothing- the brands using such cheap labour deserve to be shamed instead.

While recognising the incredibly damaging impacts which fast fashion has on the environment and workers, and agreeing that it should be discouraged, for many, the cheap pricing of clothing outlets like Primark, SHEIN, etc are the only way people can afford clothes and can live up to societal expectations of being in- trend.

Buying habits cannot always reflect personal ethics.

In today’s society it is not easy to avoid fast fashion. Many people are quick to say ‘you do not need to shop fast fashion when you can shop second hand.’ However, sites like DEPOP have been largely overtaken by teen sellers who triple the price of an item by labelling it ‘Y2K’. Equally, with societal pressures to wear certain clothes or trends, charity shop clothes can leave people with a lack of confidence in what they wear through shame of what others might say and think.

For the majority fast fashion sites like BOOHOO and PrettyLittleThing are the only way to afford what is in style to avoid the shame in schools, work places, etc when you cannot afford high quality clothing.

It should not, therefore, be the consumers being shamed for buying what they can afford to fit in with societal standards. This is a form of classicism, it is easy for those who can afford it to shop the brands which practice ethical standards- yet these brands are usually more expensive as they are paying their workers more. I am sure many more people would shop this way if they could afford it.

We should focus our energy on shaming the brands who are exploiting labourers in the first place. Through doing so there would be more education and media coverage on these unethical practices which could make charity shopping less taboo and shameful!

It’s a topic which definitely deserves more attention!

TL;DR: Age is more than a number as it represents our ability or inability to perform certain actions in society.

Age represents your maturity, the time you have had on this earth to learn lessons, be ready for certain things (alcohol, sex, driving) and your understanding of the implications of your actions.

Age is useful beyond being a mere number as it is a reference point as to what social situations are appropriate for someone of that maturity level.

For instance, in most countries, it is inappropriate for anyone under the age of 16 to drink alcohol (reaching up to 21 in the US). This is an example of age being used to determine what is and isn’t appropriate for certain members of society to be doing.

If age was treated as a mere number and people were not held accountable or made responsible for things based on their age society would be in chaos. If we did not put meaning on age, would 5 year olds be driving? Would 11-year-olds be allowed to smoke?

Age has to have more meaning than being just a number as it represents our maturity and capability or incapability to perform certain actions in society.

Tl;dr: Porn can be damaging to teens as it can diminish the ability for young people to form a healthy relationship with real sex.

Frequent porn consumption can make the brain integrate real sexual scenarios and media. This makes young people believe that what they see in porn (e.g. non-consensual encounters, physical abuse or expecting sex all the time) is the reality of real sexual encounters.

This mentality can leave many teens disappointed by the real experience or unable to enjoy sex as they are so inclined to what they have consumed their entire lives (which is often very hard to make the reality).

A study by Owens et al also highlighted the potential dangers of pornography on adolescents.

They identified :
Unrealistic sexual beliefs and values
An over-focus or obsession on sex
Sexually aggressive behaviours
Sexually permissive behaviours
An earlier interest in having sex

Tl; Dr. Jordan Peterson is a mixed bag for some, but he is great because of his work which teaches and motivates people to be a better person and his defence of free speech.

Clinical psychologist and University of Toronto Professor Jordan Peterson has become one of the most, if not the, famous western public intellectuals in recent times. His public lectures where he talks about his ’12 rules for life’, discovering personality and finding meaning in the world have been essentially inspiring to people and especially young men, having been viewed over 40 million times.

Peterson is also a best-selling author of two books, ’12 rules for life’ and his most recent ’12 more rules for life’ in which he establishes a set of rules to live by to live a better life for yourself, both being New York times best sellers selling over 3 million copies for the first. Peterson’s effect has been profound upon people who have struggled throughout life and his words speak volume when he talks of taking responsibility for yourself and telling young people to ‘stand up straight with your shoulders back’. He writes his book as he talks through his lectures, combining psychology and religion as a framework to build around his self-help book.

Despite criticisms of only appealing to young white men, he appeals to most people who take the time to listen to his words: such is shown through his sold-out world tour and reviews of his work.

Jordan Peterson is also great because of his defence of free speech.
He has become a polarising figure after kicking the hornet’s nest of pronouns and free speech, but his argument to defend it is needed now more than ever. He risked his career to speak out about the Canadian bill C-16 which condemned free speech, stating it as ‘totalitarian’ and further stating in an interview that ‘in order to to think you have to risk being offensive’;

The very use of this platform to voice one’s opinion is allowed because we have the right to voice our opinion. Everyone deserves to be listened to and understood, that way we can learn and debate to find a solution.

Peterson is a great man because he continues to inspire and motivate people whilst simultaneously fighting the good cause for free speech.

tl;dr: There is no conclusive evidence as to what makes a person gay even by the APA, therefore it is likely a mix of both societal influence and nature.

The question of what makes someone gay remains largely unanswered.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists argue sexual orientation is determined by biological and post-natal environmental factors. While the American Psychological Association is in agreement that nature and nurture play complex roles.

With two of the world's greatest psychological institutions without a conclusive answer, it is impossible to be certain whether people's environment or biological nature is what makes them homosexual.

Some doctors (e.g. Dr J. Nicolosi) have argued for environmental factors determining why people are gay, arguing people without a strong mother figure in their life develop fantasies over males instead. The 'born gay' or 'gay gene' theory lacks credibility and evidence, this is not to say being gay is a choice, however it is highly likely that societal influences have a great role to play too.

Group work is unfair as having a group who are disinterested or rely on one person to do all the work can lead to some member's grades being pulled down or others gaining grades the do not deserve due to the hard work of others.

While it is important to learn how to work in groups for many future jobs, group work needs to be relooked (possibly via introducing group work that does not contribute to end grades) as many people are left disadvantaged by groups who do not want to pull their weight.

tl;dr:Roast dinners are a plate full of unseasoned, unappetising slop that should have stayed in the 17th century.

In the age of seasonings from paprika to chilli, why are us brits still choosing to make our ‘greatest’ classic dish that of a pile of stodgy mush? Roast dinners constitute of boiled veg and meat with little flavour and only taste the slightest bit appetising coated in mountains of watery gravy and yet the whole of the British population almost faints with excitement upon eating one.

Even the best cooked roast dinners cannot escape the boring nature of merely being a plate of plain meat and veg. In turn, I have never understood the excitement surrounding a roast dinner.

Food should be exciting and flavoursome, yet we chose to eat a bland plate of boiled veg and meat every Sunday.

I’m just very much more into oriental/spicy food. Veg, gravy and meat has never really excited me no matter how great it’s cooked.

Tl;dr: Meat (especially red and processed) is incredibly damaging to our health and yet is widely promoted in supermarkets and advertisements. Investing in synthetic meat would provide a healthy alternative to the widely consumed real thing.

Red meat (pork, beef, etc) is classed as a level 2A carcinogen known to probably cause cancer in humans. By increasing funds towards synthetic meat production, we could reverse how normalised consumption of this damaging meat has become and preserve the health of many people.

Synthetic meat provides a healthy alternative to meats which have been proven to cause diabetes. Consuming red meat is associated with a significant increase of developing diabetes.

In turn, it is sensible to increase the production and funding of synthetic meat as it would improve the health of millions who intake real meat on a daily basis.

Cultural appropriation is not fine as it continues the oppression of non-dominant culture. In Australia, there are cases where white Australian businesses have stolen Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artworks for use on T-shirts and souvenirs. .This is an example of the dominant culture making money from non-dominant culture with no credit to the original artists.

Many influencers are also guilty of this. The Kardashians for example have been frequently called out for cultural appropriation. For example, Kylie Jenner has been commended for wearing her hair in braids (originating from Black culture). Yet, Kylie is being commended for styling a hair style that she did not create, she stole without regard for the oppressed community in which It was developed.

This policy would only work in an idealistic world where it could be properly enforced. If someone is willing to break the law by raping/ sexually harassing women, why would they listen to the law telling them to stay indoors.

Men could dress as women or sneak out and the only way to prevent this would be police monitoring every street in the city, and with reports that police officers are stretched like never before trying to enforce Covid-19 lockdown measures, it seems the possibility of this is unlikely.

Tl;dr: Political opinions should not be censored by teachers as long as they do not force the opinion on the pupils. Children will not be protected from these opinions in the real world, so it is better to prepare them in a monitored environment.

In 2018, the DfE said teachers should refrain from giving their political opinion while teaching. However, while I do agree that teachers should never force their opinion on students, some political influence besides their parents may benefit them.

From a young age I was only ever influenced by the right-wing opinions of grandparents, parents, etc. If I had never gone to school, it would have been very likely that I would have merely accepted these opinions as the only valid argument.

Once a child gets to school, they are faced with an array of opinions from educated individuals on important topics which the media and family members may not demonstrate. Teachers being able to demonstrate their opinion can also make the learning experience feel more personal, having real examples from teachers with lots of different perspectives aside from those the child may have forced on them at home.

By censoring these opinions, children are going to be very shocked going out into the real world, in higher education, work, etc, where people do not censor their opinions.

It is better to introduce children to the range of perspectives in a nuanced manner without forcing it on them before going out into the real world and having no choice but to have these opinions thrown in their face every time they open a newspaper or go on social media.

Taller people are advantaged in many sports. Longer legs advantage players from basketball to race track. Longer limbs can cover the ground faster, and they can reach further Ensuring an advantage to team players or lone athletes.

For instance, Usain Bolt has won eight Gold Olympic medals and is over 6 foot tall. This is not to say that the length of Bolt’s legs is the only reason for his success, however, it shows how a bit of height gives you an advantage in the sports arena!

Equally, in sports like netball, height can give you a major advantage. Being taller you’re your opponent can make it easier to prevent them passing the ball and allows you to see past them.

In turn, being tall is better than being short as it gives you an instant advantage against your opponent in many sports.

Tl;dr: Chocolate can be craved more due to female hormones but the media has turned it into a food catered to women contributing to the stereotype.

Chocolate may be craved by women more due to female reproductive hormones estrogen and progesterone, these hormones can produce moderate forms of depression (oversensitivity, mood swings, insomnia). Chocolate is craved by those feeling low due to its number of active flavonoids which induces positive effects on the mood. This demonstrates that scientifically women may be more inclined to want to eat chocolate.

However, these stereotypes have been bolstered by the media, especially ad campaigns. Adverts such as the Galaxy ads often present an attractive female biting into the chocolate in a seductive manner. This insinuating chocolate is a ‘woman’s food’ and deterring men from wanting to look feminine by eating it- contributing to the stereotype that chocolate is gendered.

While I agree that not all men are responsible on attacks for women, in fact it probably is a small minority of men committing these heinous acts, immediately taking to twitter to spread the hashtag NotAllMen after an attack is not helping the situation.

Women have no way of telling which men are responsible for these acts. It could be anyone they pass on the street and so of course we speak in terms of ‘men’ what else are we to say? As soon as the news broke that the body of Sarah Everald had been found NotAllMen started trending on twitter.

This is merely an example of men making this situation about themselves instead of attempting to educate themselves on how they can help the situation.

I have never heard anyone claim it is ‘all men’ committing these acts, but it is generally, men. For instance, in the US between 60% and 99% of sexual assault and rape is committed by men onto women. Until these statistics begin to change and women feel safe walking around at night without fearing for their lives of course we will fear men, that does not mean to say all men are committing these crimes, it means most of these crimes are committed by men.

That is why we fear them.

The attempt is not to demonise men by focusing less on the not all men narrative, we want more focus on the narrative that is almost all women who have to experience the impact of male sexual harassment in their lifetime. As 97% of women have been victims of sexual harassment.

We are not seeking to demonise all men, we want to bring about change to women not being able to live their lives freely in fear of the men who do commit these acts. This should be what is focused on instead of men trying to victimise themselves as soon as women speak up.

For many, working frequently is a choice. Over 1/3 of self employed people work at least 45 hours per week. Culturally, we are inclined to strive for the best and be productive with our time, altering to a three day weekend would impact those who want to strive for more than comfort.

Many people who work a lot do so through choice, if not, part time work would be an option for them. According to psychology professor Barry Swartz, many satisfied people work because they feel they are in charge and allows them to exit their comfort zone.This may be why so many choose to work so frequently. Working can offer us a sense of purpose and a way to strive for more. This makes the time they do have off more valuable.

Working has become a cultural norm and changing the way we work may impact many people more negatively, stripping them of their purpose.

Tl;dr: Lincoln’s role in emancipation is exaggerated as he only issued the proclamation. He did not believe in equal rights for black people, he did not actively participate in the abolition movement and actively murdered members of the Black community in America.

Lincoln is often depicted as a saint or hero for his role in emancipating the slaves in the United States in 1863. While the president was the one to issue the emancipation, his role in emancipation was not as proactive as often portrayed in history.

Lincoln did not believe Black people would ever be able to have rights or assimilate into the Black community, arguing in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 that “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races”.

Not only was Lincoln passive in the abolition movement, not getting involved in sit-ins, boycotts, etc to support the cause, he was actively inhumane towards Black people. In 1862, Lincoln ordered 38 Native Americans to be hanged without fair trial This sentence was ordered to Sioux fighters who were (quite understandably) fighting with white settlers over disputes regarding their own homeland. To order the death of those fighting for their own land shows Lincoln does not deserve to be celebrated as a such a hero towards the Black population.

It is fair to say that Lincoln was not passionate about abolition and only issued the proclamation because he felt forced. When the war began Lincoln did not want emancipation. [However, the sheer amount of runaway slaves forced Lincoln to act.]( Political Significance of Slave Resistance | History Workshop Journal | Oxford Academic (oup.com)).

Therefore, it is clear to see Lincoln was not the caring figure often presented, emancipation came to be his only option to end the war.

The Oxford dictionary defines 'wet' as 'covered or saturated in another liquid'.

By this definition water itself cannot be wet as its molecules are already bound, therefore not wetting one and other. While water can make other things wet, it is not itself a wet substance.

People often come to the conclusion that because water makes things wet it is wet itself, this is untrue as not everything's function is its identity. This is an example of a logical fallacy many people have come to believe about water.

tl;dr: Last active features help in letting people know if they can get an instant response on the platform and avoid confrontation over ignorance.

The last active feature can allow people to know whether or not they will get an instant response. This can be helpful if needing an immediate answer as if they are not active you can switch to another platform or call them instead of guessing if they will or will not instantly reply.

The ‘last active’ message can help avoid confrontation over accusations of being ignorant. If you know a person is not active, you better understand they may be experiencing connectivity issues or are doing something else and not avoiding the conversation.

While these features can seem like an invasion of privacy, most platforms do allow them to be turned off if they make people uncomfortable. For example, Apple settings allow you to turn off read receipts feature for IMessage and WhatsApp.

Tl;dr: The Pill is forced on women and when side effects are reported they are not taken serious enough, there needs to be a re- evaluation of how normalised this harmful pill has become.

The birth control pill comes with sheets long of probable side effects. When handed my first pill packet at an impressionable age, the side effects encountered by 1/10 women included: depression, breast tenderness, mood changes, migraines and ovarian cysts. Despite this, as soon as a young girl enters a doctors office wanting contraception, struggling with acne or period fluctuations, the pill is generally pushed on them by doctors without fully outlining the consequences of taking this medication. For instance, contraceptive users are 23% more likely to be prescribed anti-depressants in later life. [1]

Psychologist Sara E Hill discusses this issue in her book ‘How the pill changes everything’. Discussing how when women bring these issues up with their doctors they are brushed off and told to persevere, not taking the issue serious enough to offer alternatives.[2] An article by Today.com listed a series of women discussing how they were dismissed by doctors when complaining of headaches, etc, some even being told they were ‘attention seeking’. [3]

The issue is not necessarily that these side effects exist, it is that women are not taken seriously when bringing this up with their doctor and this is the first solution doctors will jump to with young girls who cannot safely evaluate whether gaining depression is worth losing acne for.

There needs to be a re-evaluation of the way these pills are administered and aid for women who experience negative side effects.

[1] C Skovlund et al, ‘Association of Hormonal Pill with Depression’, JAMA Psychiatry, 2016

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2552796

[2] Sara E Hill, ‘How The Pill Changes Everything’, 2019
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Pill-Changes-Everything-Control-ebook/dp/B07QCPS2WV

[3] https://www.today.com/health/women-speak-out-about-feeling-dismissed-doctors-t153701

Good to hear!

I agree, the pill was one of the greatest milestones for feminism!

The pill and contraceptive is an amazing creation, I just believe women need to be listened to and not forcefully pushed into the decision by doctors (especially when they’re too young to know the consequences).

Tl;dr: People are not getting less intelligent, social media like Facebook merely gives unintelligent people a platform to spread their views.

Many people in the 21st century are quick to say ‘people are getting stupider’, ‘the world has gone mad’, etc. However, in this century social media forms like Facebook, Reddit and Twitter give everyone a platform to speak. While in past centuries only those with an education were given a platform to speak.

In the 21st Century, it is easy to believe people are becoming more unintelligent as Facebook spreads conspiracies like the recent popular yet unsupported theory that the vaccine is a way for the government to track people. It is easy to see these theories becoming popular and assume the world is becoming dumber, but these unsupported theories probably appeared in the minds of those in past centuries, yet people did not have a means to spread them.

Before technology only published journalists and politicians could realistically spread their views to a mass audience. Today anyone can put their views on the internet and so more 'unintellectual' views will become popular.

Tl;dr: Period poverty has shown some improvement in the past few years (e.g., with the rise of red box campaigns). Yet, there is still much to be done to combat the high numbers of women struggling from period poverty around the world.

Recently period poverty has become more recognised. In 2019, the National Health Service in England devoted itself to providing free sanitary products to women in hospitals. Schools and colleges have been provided ‘red box campaigns.’ Which offer boxes of sanitary products in bathrooms so girls in school always have access to the products they need without having to ask, which can be a daunting experience and may deter many girls from seeking help.

It is therefore clear progress is being made regarding period poverty as little as five years ago these policies were not in place, leaving many women and girls to suffer in silence.

However, it is true to assert that more needs to be done to combat period poverty. In the UK 1 in 10 girls still do not have access to period products. Councillor Rob Stewart has outlined the ways in which periods are still stigmatised and an issue for many girls in society. Namely, only 22% of girls are comfortable to discuss periods with their teacher, 49% of girls in the UK had to skip an entire day of school due to their periods and over 32,000 females between 10 and 50 in Birmingham have experienced period poverty at some point in their lives. [1]

Therefore, while some progress has been made, there is still progress that needs to be made and we should not stop until every girl around the world has access to the basic necessity of period products.

[1] file:///C:/Users/Harry/Downloads/Tackling_Period_Poverty_and_Raising_Period_Awareness_Inquiry.pdf

Tl;dr: Social media introduces us to many aesthetics we would not be exposed to otherwise and so become attracted to them via this platform. They provide a sense of community and so there is nothing wrong with identifying with an aesthetic.

For many, social media is a way we can discover what we do and do not like. It exposes us to different aesthetics and styles which we would not have been exposed to otherwise. For many it is a community to identify themselves with and there is nothing wrong with seeking this sense of belonging with your favourite fashions, music taste, etc.

Instagram's explore page is packed full with fashion posts, quotes, etc, which all have their own vibe and style. The more we like certain content the more Instagram exposes us to these posts creating a community to align ourselves with and identify to.

This does not necessarily mean people are 'trend-hopping' as many people identifying with certain aesthetics (e.g. Y2K) often are accused of. People are merely using social media to find a community and style which they feel connected to and wish to identify with.

Liking certain styles is often stigmatised, but why can't people enjoy and identify with what they wish to without being penalised for it?

Tl;dr: history is essential as it encourages us to question our position in society and how to make change in the future.

George Santayana once said that ‘those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ This quote alone reinforces why it is essential that history be taught to the younger generation.

History is essential if we are to learn about our condition as humans.[1]
Penelope Corfield argued that history is not useful but essential to understand what it is to be human and allows further change.

Without history we cannot understand where we have gone right and wrong in the past. How we have got where we are today. Without learning the answers to these questions at school where is the room to become analytical humans who question our position in society? To become humans who do not just accept the present for what it is and learn how those in the past (e.g. Rosa Parks) have made a change so one day we can change the world too.

Without teaching history we would restrict so many young minds of what it is to be a human and how we have come to be as we are today, a lesson we need to learn if we are to change that in the future.

[1] http://thenhier.ca/fr/node/13429.html#:~:text=Corfield%20argues%20that%20%E2%80%9C%5Ba%5D,technologies%20that%20others%20have%20invented.

A bad lover can leave you with trust issues after cheating, deceit, emotional abuse, etc. Not everyone you fall in love with will leave you with a great experience.

Such trust issues can ruin your next relationship as the failure to trust is usually a one way ticket to a failed relationship. This cycle is then hard to break, showing how some lovers are better off avoided.

France too has announced it will go ahead with festivals this year, but capping limits of people at 5000 and sustaining covid regulations. (1)

Festivals in this manner seem like an acceptable idea, as the spread of covid would be limited as we are still adjusting to post covid life.

However, again it seems like the UK is jumping in head first without following other countries sensible leads. The same mistake we have made throughout the entire pandemic (eg not shutting the boarders when we should’ve).

(1) https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.france24.com/en/europe/20210219-france-s-summer-festivals-to-go-ahead-but-with-strict-covid-19-restrictions

Brighton and Sussex hospitals have recently unveiled their new gender inclusive terms like ‘human milk.’

Human milk can only come from the breast of a human. The term breast milk does not deny anyone’s gender, it merely reiterates that milk comes from the breast of a human.

While I understand the need for hospitals to implement gender neutral terms such as ‘birthing parents’ instead of mother and father as we cannot assume the gender of those in the hospital, the term breast milk is unnecessary as it was never gendered in the first place.

The breast is the part of the human body which produces milk, to avoid this term is avoiding scientific fact. Milk cannot be derived from anywhere else.

Tl;dr: Slang should not appear in classroom learning as this would be unfair to EFL students and teachers who are unfamiliar to the terms.

While language is evolving, standard English is the version taught and understood by everyone. There are different slang terms from all English regions, and with the internet young people especially are acquiring terms from around the globe. For example, recent technological advancements mean young people can speak in near enough code, with acronyms like lol and rofl entering day to day speech.

While we do need to recognise that language is evolving this way with technology, students who speak English as a second language and teachers who are not highly involved in the social media era will find this language hard to understand. This would make the learning process a lot harder as how would a teacher be able to mark something they do not understand? How would a student only just coming to terms with standard English be able to peer assess their classmates study?

If we keep to a standard English in the classroom, we create a fair learning environment that everyone can understand and contribute to.

Tl;dr: Classical music is the best music to study with as it activates the parts of your brain responsible for reasoning skills and its lack of lyrics prevent distraction from your studies.

In 1993, Raucher et al produced the ‘Mozart effect’ via an experiment which showed listening for Mozart for ten minutes provided listeners with greater reasoning skills.[1] Since then, his experiment has come under much scrutiny accused the theory of only provoking enjoyment arousal making his other claims false.

However, a recent study by J S Jenkins proved listening to classical music activates the prefrontal and temporal regions of the brain (the same area concerned with reasoning skills).[2] This demonstrates classical music as the best form of music to efficiently aid your studies.

Even without scientific evidence, classical music is the best music to study to as its general lack of lyrics prevent distraction based on what the song is saying rather than the words you are writing or reading.

Classical music’s calming and relaxing melodies create an effective and calm study environment, the perfect atmosphere to produce the best work.

[1] J S Jenkins, The Mozart Effect, Jr Soc Med, 2001
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107680109400404
[2] ibid
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107680109400404

Tl;dr: Immortality would be a good thing as it would remove one of the greatest burdens on our lives: ageing.

Immortality removes all signs of ageing which put a strain on the quality of our lives. Without the constraint of ageing we would be able to lead a more carefree life.

Ageing results in a loss of physical and mental abilities.[1] It leads to disease, memory loss, increasing pains, etc. Each of the prior prevent us doing everything we wish we could before our life is over, without these worries we would be free to achieve all our goals without the barrier of ageing.

Ageing also causes frequent worry. Worry over death, disease, whether or not we will get to see everything we wish to before we die. If we were immortal this worry would not exist, removing a great burden from our lives.

In turn, if we were immortal one of our greatest downfalls (ageing) would cease to be and we could do everything we ever wanted without this constraint.

[1] Jonas Haeg, ‘Immortality: would it be worth it’ Sowerby Essay Competition, 2016.
https://philosophyandmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Jonas-Haeg-Immortality-2016.pdf

Dr Pepper offers few alternatives to its original flavour, while Coca-Cola offers a wide range of flavours and forms.

Dr Pepper is hard to find if not in its original full-fat flavour. While Coca-Cola is offered in a range of flavours from cherry to vanilla. Diet to sugar free. This proves superior to Dr Pepper as to drink it you have to enjoy each of the 23 distinct flavours, while with Coca-Cola you can choose which flavour you enjoy the most and purchase that, not having to compromise.

Tl; dr: While the joker did lack range in its message, in no way did it lack its ability to say it in a meaningful way.

The film does provide a message of kindness and how we should treat people in society. When speaking of this movie many mention how joker illuminates issues in mental illness to the podium.

Whilst I do agree that bringing films from the 70’s and 80’s in current pop culture is no groundbreaking feat, it does manage to deliver a message that relates to what many people are feeling today. Just because he doesn’t fit in society doesn’t mean his character is invalid of being treated kindly. Joker emphasises this.

Regarding the issue on Arthur’s violence. The climatic scene on the Murray talk shows how willing the audience is to side with Arthur’s violence when he shoots murray. That is what director Todd Phillips does so well is grip the audience in this suspenseful scene. Murray is a horrible person, especially to Arthur, but he’s not a villain. He didn’t deserve to die. The audience did want Arthur to kill Murray, even if they say they didn’t. The film does well to make you understand Arthur into being on his side in this scene of violence.

Joker was a little one note in its message, but it certainly did not fail to say anything meaningful because it highlights many issues surrounded mental illness and social psychology in today’s society. It wasn’t afraid deliver this message and this is what appealed to the audience.

A recent study by Rodan et al shows daily skincare routines have a great impact on the overall quality of our complexion. (1)

The skincare trend does not serve purely to make us feel attractive to others. It is important to feel attractive for yourself and feel good in the skin you have to live in. It is healthier to improve the health of your skin than mask it in coats of make up everyday.

(1) Rodan et al, Skincare Bootcamp: The Evolving Role of Skincare, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open, 2016

While not scientifically, two people can create an illusion of love at first sight. According to a 2017 study from the University of Groningen, love at first sight may be a positive illusion.[1] Meaning you think you loved the other person immediately due to the strong feelings you have further down the line in your relationship.

Therefore, love at first sight does exist but more as a memory bias than a scientifically backed reaction.

[1] https://www.insider.com/is-love-at-first-sight-real-2018-6

Tl;dr: Sleeping naked is the best way to sleep due to the countless physical and mental health benefits.

Sleeping naked has endless benefits and was what nature intended.

Sleeping naked has proved to improve male fertility as a recent study of 656 males proved a link between wearing tight fitted underwear and a lower sperm count. [1] Sleeping naked keeps the testicles at an optimal temperature for sperm health.

Sleeping naked also benefits women's genital health as much as males. Wearing tight underwear to bed creates a prime environment for the overproduction of yeast, leading to infections like thrush.[2] Sleeping naked is one of the best ways to prevent this.

Sleeping naked not only provides physical health benefits but mental ones too. A study by West showed that the more time spent naked provides more life satisfaction.[3] The mental health benefits of sleeping naked can be further bolstered if next to a partner. A study by Mogburg et al showed oxytocin release does not have to come from sexual interactions alone, and sleeping naked with a partner can be a great release of this happy hormone. [4]

The benefits of sleeping go beyond this list (and can be found here: https://www.healthline.com/health/benefits-of-sleeping-naked#self-esteem) but the prior examples give an idea of the many fantastic reasons to sleep naked.

[1] Alarcon et al 'Type of underwear worn and markers of testicular function among men attending a fertility centre' Human Reproduction, Volume 33, Issue 9, September 2018, Pages 1749–1756,
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey259

[2] https://www.healthline.com/health/benefits-of-sleeping-naked#self-esteem

[3]West, K. Naked and Unashamed: Investigations and Applications of the Effects of Naturist Activities on Body Image, Self-Esteem, and Life Satisfaction. J Happiness Stud 19, 677–697 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9846-1

[4]Uvnäs-Moberg Kerstin, Handlin Linda, Petersson Maria 'Self-soothing behaviors with particular reference to oxytocin release induced by non-noxious sensory stimulation', Frontiers in Psychology , Vol 5 (2015)

Forbes magazine claimed a person and business has seven seconds to make an impression.[1]

Tattoos have been associated with gangs, violence, etc for years- these associations (while no longer true) will not go away overnight. It is almost inevitable that if you have an older employer or customer with conservative values they will instantly pick up on these tattoos as a negative trait because this is what society has drilled into them.

Until this stereotype disappears, tattoos will still have negative connotations, deterring customers from using the business. Therefore, employers are looking out for their business due to the incorrect stereotypes on tattoos which many people continue to hold.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/serenitygibbons/2018/06/19/you-have-7-seconds-to-make-a-first-impression-heres-how-to-succeed/?sh=702ae42956c2

Tl;dr: Crimes, while tragic, are sadly the greatest incentive to policy and law makers to produce policies which ensure they will not occur again. As humans are more inclined to pay attention after witnessing tragedy unfold, not when it is just speculation.

In 1895 Emile Durkheim wrote ‘the only condition under which crime could cease must be one in which collective sentiments had reached an unprecedented intensity.’ [1] His theory argues that crime benefits society as the only way our social boundaries and social collectiveness can be reaffirmed is through crimes which remind us of these values. Certain crimes (as tragic as they may be) act as a way to ensure they do not happen again or on a greater scale.

After the Grenfell Tower incident, a new policy was introduced in October 2019 which banned the use of combustible materials in the walls of buildings over 18 metres.[2] While not denying the incident was a devastating tragedy, the criminals involved in building Grenfell ensured another building regulation incident of such scale will not occur for a long time, if ever again. Crimes like these are necessary to reaffirm the importance of our policies (like safe building regulations and thorough checks). It is a sad reality that we face. The greatest way to get policy to change and law makers to listen, is via an example of a crime or tragic incident. Humans are more inclined to paying attention after seeing a tragedy unfold, not when it is mere speculation.

It can be argued there should be more regulation in the first place to prevent any crime occurring at all. This would be ideal but is unrealistic. The reason for this is human beings are naïve. A great example is 9/11. We never had airport security before the horrific attack, presumably because nobody had ever thought something so tragic would occur. It is hard to imagine what sadistic individuals can do before they are done. Once the criminals commit these acts, we can work to combat them on a greater scale to ensure nobody is harmed in this way again. Again, demonstrating that policy makers would not produce protective measures for something that has never occurred before.

Crime is not a good thing but is necessary if we are to prevent more people from being harmed. People only pay attention once the damage is already done.

[1] R. E. Jones, ‘Emile Durkheim’ https://contentstore.cla.co.uk/EReader/Index?guid=6cdcc04a-61b5e61180c7005056af4099&pcid=1015287&t=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJqdGkiOiI4ZGUyMzMzNC1hZTRkLTQ4YmEtYjNhYi1jZTZlMGQ2N2ZhNmIiLCJuYmYiOjE2MTM1OTAzMzYsImV4cCI6MTYxMzU5MDYzNiwiaWF0IjoxNjEzNTkwMzM2LCJpc3MiOiJEQ1MiLCJhdWQiOiJSZWFkZXIifQ.GHb9ms_FgfolUWq3yMsRYttsYyC73Rb41Md22q9bxcU

[2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0118d592-6aca-48e7-88ee-ea2e6ecfff38#:~:text=The%20new%20Approved%20Documents%20do,more%20introduced%20in%20October%202019.

Tl;dr: Working from home can create a loss of social interaction which human’s physical and mental health is dependent on. Therefore, working from home should not remain after the pandemic is over.

Social interaction is essential to our mental and physical health and the workplace is a key institution of socialisation for many adults. Working from home and minimising interaction we run the risk of losing motivation, becoming lonely and a literal broken heart.

A recent study by the Journal of the American Heart Association Report showed social isolation along with heart failure could increase hospitalisations and death.[1] They argued ‘socially isolated patients were more likely to die than more socially connected patients.’ A key example of how we were made to interact with others and taking away our work spaces permanently would deprive us o a key aspect of daily interactions.

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic there have been an increase in suicides due to lack of social interaction increasing poor mental health.[2] John Okolie predicts that suicide rates could rise 145% by the end of the pandemic. Keeping people from communicative and interactive work environments longer than this could increase this figure even longer.

[1] Social isolation plus heart failure could increase hospitalizations, deaths, The Journal of the American Heart Association Report, 2018.

[2] John Okolie, The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: a living systematic review.

Children are not experts in the education field. It is highly likely they would choose options which suited their interests in the moment and not what would benefit them in the future. I remember choosing my own GCSEs at 14 and finding that overwhelming enough. Experts in the field know best as to what will aid the child’s learning, not the children themselves- that’s why they are at school in the first place.

tl;dr: The 21st century is not the best time to be alive as our happiness is prevented due to our addiction to technology.

In the 21st century, our means of happiness as humans have been corrupted by technology. Studies have proven humans are happiest when focusing on the present, being outside and exercising. All things which in the 21st century are less common as we spend our days behind a screen focusing on what other people are doing with their lives (which are most likely exaggerated or made up for an audience) .

From the 21st century, suicide rates increased 30%. [1] This makes sense as in today’s society we are avoiding the things that us as humans were born to do. Exercising, socialising, enjoying the open air. Even when we do enjoy the company of others it is not uncommon to be stuck behind a screen, not paying attention to one’s company (even restaurants now have us ordering from our phones).

Even our love lives in the 21st century are corrupted by dating apps and technology. These applications advertises finding true love, yet leaves people superficially swiping and basing who they want to spend their lives with over a mere photo and corny caption.

We live our lives behind a screen, focusing on other people’s happiness instead of our own. While statistics may show us to be living peacefully and happily, in reality, we are a slave to our screens.

[1] U.S. Suicide Rate Up 30% Since Start of 21st Century - Bloomberg

Tl;dr) The drinking age should be lowered as it would prevent people drinking too much in irresponsible environments like parties as they would be allowed in bars.

In the USA an adult is an individual aged 18. An adult can drive, raise children, work a full- time job (all activities which require an individual to be responsible as others lives and businesses are in their hands). Yet an 18-year-old is considered too irresponsible to drink in America until they are 21. This suggests the individual is not a responsible adult, yet is still held accountable for greater things than drinking. If you are not responsible enough to drink you should not be allowed to drive, work, etc.

High drinking ages do not deter people from drinking, they merely push drinking into unmonitored, irresponsible environments such as fields and parties. A study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration showed that 4.2 million young people (ages 12-20) in the US reported binge drinking once in the past month (2019). [1]

Lowering the drinking age would encourage people to drink responsibly. They would be allowed to drink in environments which prevent binge drinking (as most bars stop serving those who have drank too much). They would also have better access to healthcare if someone drinks too much or is injured than at a party.

[1] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Table 7.16A— Alcohol Use in Lifetime, Past Year, and Past Month among Persons Aged 12 to 20, by Gender: Numbers in Thousands, 2002-2019.
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt29394/NSDUHDetailedTabs2019/NSDUHDetTabsSect7pe2019.htm#tab7-16a.

tl;dr: The Eat Out to Help Out scheme demonstrates how Boris Johnson has not prioritised the health of British people, as this scheme put the economy before the protection of the nation from the virus.

In a speech on the 26th of January 2021, Boris Johnson claimed he and his government ‘did everything they could’ to prevent 100,000 deaths from the Covid-19 pandemic.

The most striking contradiction of this statement was Johnson’s introduction of the Eat Out to Help Out scheme of August 2020. This scheme introduced 50% off restaurant food as an incentive for people to eat out and boost the economy- in the middle of a global pandemic. If the British Prime minister was truly sincere about doing everything he could to prevent the deaths of thousands, why introduce a highly persuasive scheme for people to go out and spread the virus in a public space as crowded as a restaurant?

The reason the prime minister and British Government introduced this scheme was to boost the economy. The scheme saw up to a 200% increase in restaurant visitors and made a £250 Million positive impact on the economy. [1] While this is great for the largely failing economy in 2020, the scheme drove up Covid infection rates up to 17%.[2] While the government claim to have done the best they could to save the lives of thousands, they have very clearly instead prioritised the economy over the health and wellbeing of British people.

[1] https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/food-and-drink/eat-out-to-help-out-scheme-money-government-saved-jobs-restaurants-640942

[2]https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/research/centres/cage/news/30-10-20-eat_out_to_help_out_scheme_drove_new_covid_19_infections_up_by_between_8_and_17_new_research_finds/

You make a really great point Anna! I agree it’s definitely a lot easier to critique in retrospect.

However, other world leaders have shown that there was a capability to handle the pandemic efficiently (like shutting the boarders and not introducing incentives to go out). With many countries like Australia in a far better position than we are right now demonstrating there was a possibility to handle the pandemic better than the UK has.

The bits of pulp in orange juice are incredibly annoying, they get stuck in your teeth and on the tongue. If the bits were truly the better option, an alternative probably would not have been created in the first place.

Restaurants are also more inclined to sell orange juice without bits (for example, Mcdonalds is one of the world’s leading fast-food restaurants and only offers smooth orange juice) therefore smooth must be the superior option.

Tl;dr: Spotify is better than Apple Music as it offers personalised suggestions, free plans and a great selection of niche playlists.

Spotify is better than Apple Music as it introduces you to new songs, allows you to browse the specially selected playlists for every mood possible (even a playlist for an event as niche as being in a car full of boys). Spotify even creates a personalised presentation of your music habits at the end of every year.

To be an Apple music supporter you must know your own music taste inside out, with few suggestions on offer, only a mere search tab to play the songs you already know, where is the fun in that?

While the pricing of both app subscriptions is the same (around ten pounds a month for a standard plan) Spotify caters for more users. They offer a free tier for those who cannot afford to go premium. While Apple does not offer anything for those who do not want to fork out ten pounds a month.

Spotify is also great for finding all your favourite artist’s best work in one place. Type in almost any artist in Spotify and it will present you with their best and most popular tracks all in one prepared playlist, so you do not have to go through the effort of preparing one!

Spotify's daily mix playlist is another great, personal feature. Spotify analyses the kinds of genres you frequently play and creates multiple playlists of songs it thinks you may enjoy every day- and normally always will.

In turn Spotify is better than apple music, especially if you want to discover new music and are adventurous in you music taste.

Yes, I think their music selection was very similar with around 50/60 million songs on each platform.

The benefits of intermittent fasting cannot be ignored (which sees no eating until noon). Intermittent fasting has been studied by Matt Mason ph.D for 25 years, he argues our bodies have evolved to go without food for hours, as hunter gatherers we took a long time to search for our next meal.[1] If we constantly eat, we are not giving our body time to burn our fat stores- leading to obesity.

The benefits of fasting have been proven by many studies. Cabo et al discovered this diet lowers blood pressure, improves glucose regulation, stress resistance, etc.[2] In turn, breakfast may not be as essential and good for us as we are often taught.

References:
[1] https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/intermittent-fasting-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work

[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1905136?casa_token=-oOGRunZrC4AAAAA%3AZF8Uh-0jLkj2uS9scJfOfEB5e9cErxW62l_fDjI9wGmUMrrc8TGKqrErWN6Puo1SgKYIDaLCnWe6qQ

Men sexualise breasts, women use it to their advantage. As 78% of men visit porn sites once a month and only 1/3 of porn users are women, showing how the sexualisation stems predominantly from men as they consume most content featuring women’s naked breasts. [1] Hooters for example sees women who know men will enjoy their bodies and instead of letting them enjoy it for free it puts the power back in women’s hands by charging them for it.

[1] https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/process-addiction/porn-addiction/related/pornography-statistics/

Hi LeeAnn, you pose a great point, by this definition women do sexualise breasts. However, I do not think women would have to do so if men had not sexualised them in the first place.

tl;dr: Processed meat is proven to be detrimental to our health and the environment and therefore should not be promoted in the media.

The World Health organisation places processed meat as a group one carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans). [1] Processed red meat is also linked to a higher risk of diabetes, a study by the Duke- NUS Medical School studied over 63,000 adults for 11 years and proved those consuming more red meat had a higher chance of developing diabetes. [2] Yet when tuning in to your favourite show you can almost guarantee to see an advertisement on Mcdonalds, KFC, Princes, etc, all of which advertise health destroying meats.

In 2002 The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act was introduced, which saw the end of cigarette adverts on billbords, TV, and radio. This was due to Tobacco’s detrimental impacts on our health, therefore, promoting it was deemed irresponsible and dangerous. If so, why is processed meat, which is in the same Carcinogen class as Tobacco still being promoted so widely?

Not only is processed meat damaging our health. The mass consumption of it is harming the environment. A study by the University of Oxford showed that meat and dairy produces 60% of Greenhouse Gas emissions.[3] Showing the meat that is promoted on a day-to-day basis is destroying our planet too. Yet, there is little information about this in the media, the time that could be spent demonstrating the impact of meat on the environment is taken up by adverts which are advertising the consumption of it.

A study by Biener et al showed the positive impact anti-smoking adverts had upon the younger generation. [4] Anti- processed meat adverts would hopefully have a similar impact. If we begin to educate people on the detrimental impacts of processed meat instead of promoting them, our health and earth could be in a better place.

References:
[1] Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1–128 – IARC Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans (who.int)

[2]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905134506.htm#:~:text=Higher%20intake%20of%20red%20meat,these%20meats%2C%20new%20research%20shows.

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth#:~:text=The%20new%20analysis%20shows%20that,are%20now%20livestock%20or%20humans.

[4]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730490447084?casa_token=amXPes-fbwwAAAAA%3Auq5ytCYWc6meQxCQQLDO2cx9va_8zE1lGeZQHOhXnApruB7gH0pnfOOW4XLp1ea0LCtrdrvv9fE

While high end minimalism may be trend orientated, keeping things simple is a less consumeristic way of living.

For instance, if I was to decorate a minimalist living room, I would paint the walls white, add a few plants, etc. Avoiding over-patterned wallpapers, and the general clutter which does nothing for the environment or our homes.

The need to constantly buy more is not good. It clutters both the mind and room. Some high end spenders do attempt to consumerise and make trends of minimalism, however for the everyday person, there is no harm in wanting to keep things simple.

Children are not losing their innocence, when considering that children 200 years ago were viewed as workers, children today are more sheltered and protected than ever from harm and mature topics.

While children may be introduced to CV working and the world of work at school, this will only benefit them in the long term and prevent it being sprung upon them when they want a job at sixteen. It is not as though children are being forced to work as they were in the past, children are merely being prepared for life to come at school, which is exactly what school is for.

A study by sociologist Opie showed that children are not losing their innocence as there is still a great divide between video games targeted towards children and adults, with adult video games showing more explicit content.

A great example of just how shielded children’s innocence is in today’s society is The Watershed Ban. Ofcom describes this as protecting children from harmful TV (allowing only sexual and violent imagery on the TV from 9pm). [1] If we did not wish to continue protecting children’s innocence measures like these would not be in place.

[1] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/advice-for-consumers/television/what-is-thewatershed#:~:text=There%20are%20strict%20rules%20about,TV%20before%20the%209pm%20watershed.&text=The%20watershed%20means%20the%20time,for%20children%20can%20be%20broadcast.

Trigger warning- This opinion piece will address some explicit themes such as abuse and sexual intercourse.

Both the movie and book franchise 50 Shades of Grey promotes abusive relationships as it sees all aspect of main character Anastasia’s life controlled by her partner Christian. The movie is branded to be about BDSM (defined by Dictionary.com as sexual behaviour involving restraints and submission). [1] However, it is important to emphasise that BDSM is generally safe while kept in a sexual context, yet this movie demonstrates how all aspect of Anastasia’s life are controlled by her partner.

Namely, Christian creates a contract which determines how Ana eats, dresses and even what contraception she takes with no regard to the impacts this will have on her. This is evidence of incredibly toxic behaviour yet romanticised to make women see male control over their lives as the norm, reinforcing misogyny as well as abuse.

Ana is also abused in the bedroom, while she is given a safe word to use if she is uncomfortable during sexual activity, when she does use it Christian fails to even ask if she is okay. In the book it narrates Ana’s thoughts during sex as ‘no, no, no please’ and yet this is not translated to a story of marital rape, rather a twisted love story regarding how much Christian cares for Ana!

Christian is also guilty of manipulation both in and out of the bedroom. For example, he intentionally prevents Ana’s sexual pleasure to demonstrate ‘how frustrated he feels.’ This portrays Ana as a way to get his emotions out, when what he most likely needs is therapy. Again this portrays women as an emotional sponge for all men’s frustrations, as echoed by feminist Fran Ansley who argues ‘women play their traditional role as takers of shit, they often absorb frustration at their own powerlessness and oppression.’[2] Demonstrating how 50 Shades of Grey is dismantling what feminism is working towards- equality.

This story could be an effective way of demonstrating and warning people of this form of toxic sexual and manipulative behaviour in relationships. Instead, writer E. L James romanticises this behaviour through turning this story into a romance novel portraying Christian as the ideal man.

[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bdsm
[2] https://revisesociology.com/2015/11/30/marxist-feminist-perspectives-on-family-life/

Apart from the attractive bottle, Figi water is no different from any other water. It’s promoted as “still water from the prestine Pacific islands “ (1) Despite this, after personal blind taste tests, I can still tell no distinction between tap water and Figi water.

Other blind taste tests between bottled water and tap water have proven this point. Selfcarehub.com conducted a test in 2018, in which they concluded tap water tastes as good, while having environmental benefits! (2)

(1) https://www.aqua-amore.com/categories/all-water-brands/fiji-all-water-brands/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgc-ABhA7EiwAjev-jz2Q16f2SnIE096CrEnylAUfDflqLklbCJ-_qLEHbnqicX8gOleacRoCmOgQAvD_BwE

(2) https://www.aqua-amore.com/categories/all-water-brands/fiji-all-water-brands/?gclid=CjwKCAiAgc-ABhA7EiwAjev-jz2Q16f2SnIE096CrEnylAUfDflqLklbCJ-_qLEHbnqicX8gOleacRoCmOgQAvD_BwE

Love Island should be banned because on the 10th of May 2019 The Jeremy Kyle Show was cancelled after 16 years due a guest star’s suicide. The guest reported the weight of the consequences of the show were too much. One guest of thousands. Yet Love Island has seen the suicide of a presenter and two guests after only 5 years of running and is still widely supported by the public and ITV. If ITV banned Jeremy Kyle as the impacts of the show were too much for guests, the same should be done for Love Island.

Zara Holland (a former Love Island star) reported taking anti-depressants after leaving the show. She argued support from the ITV staff was limited.[1] Love Island needs to be banned or at least re-looked as it sees young adults put in the limelight and manipulated on screen to see guests how the producers want them to come across for entertainment. The show has little regard for guests as human beings with real emotions. Characters on the show are demonised, often due to the editing removing the good parts of their character and only showing them at their worst in situations like fighting.

The show is corrupt as the viewers seem to be more concerned for contestants than the producers. The 2018 Love Island received over 2000 Ofcom complaints due to the mental torment of guest Dani Dyer after manipulating footage and making it look like her boyfriend was seeing his ex. Leaving her days without him to figure out the situation alone, as though she was a puppet in their twisted game of entertainment.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44884963

I agree! It definitely seems there is a link between a lot of reality TV shows and contestants developing mental health issues . There should be more measures in place to protect contestants and support them after the show is over.

Barbie is a terrible role model to children. An experiment on the link between the exposure of 5- to 8-year-old girls and their body image revealed girls exposed to Barbie had lower self esteem and a desire to look as thin as the doll. [1]

The Barbie Doll is a negative role model due to her unobtainable beauty standards. The lack of representation (until recently) of races besides White Caucasian, blonde haired, thin girls, caused many girls to strive for the impossible. Once these children realise they do not look like this beauty standard, their confidence and self- esteem are inevitably shattered. Barbie may be becoming a more positive role model in recent years with more representations of races, body shapes, etc. However, it cannot be argued Barbie has come close to being a positive role model until very recently.

References -

[1] Dittmar, H., Halliwell, E., & Ive, S. (2006). Does Barbie make girls want to be thin? The effect of experimental exposure to images of dolls on the body image of 5- to 8-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 283–292.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.283

Prostitution is going to happen whether legal or not. Under legal supervision prostitutes would be more likely to approach the police for help in life threatening situations knowing they are not doing anything which could get them in legal trouble.

In June 2003, New Zealand legalised prostitution. Since then, prostitutes in the country have reported feeling more comfortable seeking police help when hurt or threatened by a client. A study by The Christchurch School of Medicine found the legalisation of prostitution provided sex workers ‘employment, legal and health rights.’[1] For many desperate women, sex work is the only way to support themselves and their families.

The legalisation of prostitution would not only better the situation of prostitutes themselves, but many clients of prostitutes also struggle to have sex due to: being handicapped, having a sexually transmitted disease and bad marriages. Sex is a normal and healthy part of life which everyone should experience, yet many struggle to find someone who wants to have sex with them. The benefits of sex include (but are not limited to): better heart health, stress relief and better self- image. Everyone should have a way to experience such benefits. Sociologists Weizer argues prostitutes aid their clients with sex and companionship. [2]

[1] https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a20067359/why-prostitution-should-be-legal/
[2] https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/9-4-prostitution/

Prostitution is going to happen whether legal or not. Under legal supervision prostitutes would be more likely to approach the police for help in life threatening situations knowing they are not doing anything which could get them in legal trouble.

In June 2003, New Zealand legalised prostitution. Since then, prostitutes in the country have reported feeling more comfortable seeking police help when hurt or threatened by a client. A study by The Christchurch School of Medicine found the legalisation of prostitution provided sex workers ‘employment, legal and health rights.’[1] For many desperate women, sex work is the only way to support themselves and their families.

The legalisation of prostitution would not only better the situation of prostitutes themselves, but many clients of prostitutes also struggle to have sex due to: being handicapped, having a sexually transmitted disease and bad marriages. Sex is a normal and healthy part of life which everyone should experience, yet many struggle to find someone who wants to have sex with them. The benefits of sex include (but are not limited to): better heart health, stress relief and better self- image. Everyone should have a way to experience such benefits. Sociologists Weisner argues prostitutes aid their clients with sex and companionship. [2]

[1] https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a20067359/why-prostitution-should-be-legal/
[2] https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems/chapter/9-4-prostitution/

A society full of women would still have war. Men and women experience the same intensity of anger, yet express it differently, with women striving to ruin reputations and men settling things with violence. However, no matter how such anger is expressed it is still nonetheless, expressed. A world full of women would presumably experience more ideological wars, with women tending to settle disputes in a non- aggressive manner. A study by the University of Chicago examining 198 monarchs from 1480 to 1913 and discovered polities run by Queens were more likely to participate in interstate conflicts.[1] Demonstrating that women may be perceived as more timid and more peaceful than they really are.

It has been argued that women are acting as aggressive as men with the increasing gender equality in the present day. A recent study demonstrates in 1957 men were responsible for 11 violent offenses for everyone committed by a woman. [2] In modernity, it is 4 male charges to every 1 female charge. Therefore, if all men suddenly left the earth today, women would be likely to wage war as we are being socialised to ignore gender norms (like women should act ‘ladylike’ and not act aggressively), in turn making the modern woman as likely to wage war as a male.

A great example which counters this opinion is Queen Elizabeth the First. Throughout her reign she waged war with Spain for 18 years (and won) and fought wars within England (such as the Desmond Rebellion). Her fierce independence in a time when women were seen as having a lower status to men demonstrates how women are not always as agreeable as stereotypes portray them to be and are able to take action against those who threaten them.

References
[1] https://qz.com/1115269/would-the-world-be-more-peaceful-if-there-were-more-women-leaders/
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3789957/Why-modern-women-aggressive-s-called-dark-equality-surge-respectable-women-flying-violent-rages-trivial-reasons.html

While I definitely agree the way we approach homework needs to be relooked, possibly starting at a later age in school or having it less frequently, homework teaches children responsibility which they need in order to succeed at A-level, university and in jobs.

One of the greatest purposes schools serve is to ‘develop (children) into sequential members of society’.[1] Without responsibilities such as homework, children would find it incredibly difficult to transition from having no responsibilities outside of school to becoming well rounded members of society who have no choice but to take responsibilities for life outside of their own leisure activities. Homework is a great way to build a bridge from having little responsibility to becoming adults.

[1] ASCD, ‘What is the Purpose of Education’ (2012)
https://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_update/eu201207_infographic.pdf

You pose a great argument! However, whilst it would be great in an ideal world to segregate children in pods while wearing mask this seems highly impractical in reality. Attempting to keep children below 11 wearing masks in supermarkets creates a challenging situation (presumably why they are exempt) wearing masks for 5-6 hours in a school day seems inconceivable.

Equally, mental health is just as important as physical health. While we would be protecting the nations physical health by segregating children in this way, it seems unfair to keep children in pods all day when they could be at home learning with family or carers.

‘Pretty’ people (a subjective adjective, but in society this word is associated stereotypically with those thin, able-bodied and white) have an advantage over others in society.

Pretty people are smiled at more by strangers, offered more jobs, offered seats on the bus and are perceived as smarter and healthier than less attractive members of society. A PHD study conducted by a student at the University of Malta concluded people with attractive physical traits were judged better by strangers at first sight.[1] This is hard to deny, even if unintentional our mind is constantly making judgements on strangers as we pass them, often regarding those who look well put together and attractive on the eyes as happier and more successful, even if we know nothing about them.

It is inevitably easier for attractive people to find happiness in relationships, as its rare in today’s superficial society to find people who search for a partner based on their persona as opposed to their looks. For instance, dating apps such as Tinder are a popular way for the singles of the 21st century to look for love. This app is based on appearance via a few photos alone, demonstrating how much easier it is for attractive people to find love in the modern day.

Dating shows such as naked attraction also demonstrates the ease at which attractive people can find love, with the show aiming to find partners for singles based on their naked body- in which those with unattractive features seeming to be removed from the game first (however that is only based on the episodes personally watched). Such theory is reinforced by a study from Chapman University. 92% of male participants claimed they wanted their potential partner to be ‘good looking.’[2]

It is not exclusively in the dating field where attractive people experience privilege. The University of Wisconsin uncovered that job success can be influenced by how attractive you are, as they found companies with attractive CEOs had a higher revenue following a TV appearance. Equally, researchers Udry and Eckland found -based on a study of 601 males- attractive males had a higher income than those without attractive features. [3]

[1] Tabone, Yanika, The Relationship Between Attraction and Social Privilege, University of Malta (2016)
https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/14657

[2] Mitrokostas, Sophia, Insider, 'Benefits of Being Attractive According to Science' (2018)
https://www.insider.com/benefits-of-being-attractive-science-2018-12

[3] J. R. Urdy & B. K. Eckland, Benefits of Being Attractive, University of North Carolina (1984)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pr0.1984.54.1.47

While the most famous example of Jewish people being blamed and punished for societal downfalls is the holocaust, the Jewish community have been used as a scapegoat for issues globally for the past 2000 years.

For years the Jewish Community have been blamed for epidemics and illnesses such as The Black Death, with the Jews being accused of poisoning the wells in which the people drank and therefore being burned alive between 1348 and 1351 and tortured for their confessions. [1]

The use of the Jews as a scapegoat for disease is not just a thing of the medieval ages. In 2007, Saudi Arabia accused Isreali Jews of trading fruits which were poisoned and in turn caused illness. The current Covid-19 pandemic has also allowed an opportunity for the Jews to be blamed for creating illness as a ‘Zionist agenda’. Throughout the pandemic social media posts have been spread (as collated by the CST 2020 research briefing) with posts claiming the virus is a hoax created by the Jews to ‘keep people kosher’ or their attempt to ‘depopulate the world’. [2]

Researchers Gibson and Howard focused their work on Jewish scapegoating in Russia claiming scapegoating is ‘a common response to economic or political distress’ [3]. The Jews in Russia throughout history have fallen victim to this use of scapegoating. In particular the Jewish pogroms of the 1880s were performed by the anti-Jewish Russian citizens who believed the Jews were to blame for taking up space and jobs. The pogroms killed 25 Jews between 1881 and 1882, as well as destructing multiple Jewish businesses and homes.

[1] S. Cohn, ‘The Black Death and the Burning of the Jews’, Past & Present, Vol. 196, Issue 1 (2007)
https://academic.oup.com/past/article-abstract/196/1/3/1488091

[2] CST ‘The Coronavirus and the Plague of Anti-semintism’ Research Briefing (2020)
https://cst.org.uk/data/file/d/9/Coronavirus%20and%20the%20plague%20of%20antisemitism.1586276450.pdf

[3] J. L. Gibson, M. M. Howard ‘Russian Anti-Semitism and the Scapegoating of Jews’ British Journal of Political Science, Vol 37,No. 2 (2007)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4497288?seq=27#metadata_info_tab_contents

In conventional views the fall of the Roman Empire was traditionally argued to have occurred around the year 476, with Romulus Augustulus as the last emperor and the West Roman Empire. The empire was argued to have fell due to a loss of territory after Barbaric invasions.

However, there is great evidence to demonstrate how Rome never officially fell at this time or for centuries after.
While the Roman Empire in the West began to decline, the Roman Empire in the East (which often goes forgotten) was still thriving one thousand years after 476. Ironically, Constantinople- the capital of the East Roman Empire- had surpassed the East of the Roman Empire politically and economically, being surrounded by sea ensured secure trade and defence. The new barbarian leader in the West after Augustulus was even commended by the Roman emperor in Constantinople. [1] This demonstrating the power the Roman Empire still had even when supposedly being ‘taken down’ in 476 by the barbarians.

Historian Brian Perkins has argued there was no abrupt ‘fall’ of Rome as history often portrays it. Instead, it was a transition of culture. [2] As an example, fashions in Rome altered with the introduction of the shield as an accessory and Latin evolved into an array of languages named the ‘romance vernaculars.[3] Yet the colosseum still stood and could not be matched. Moreover, a major project of research into the period 300-800 was branded ‘The Transformation of the Roman World’, hinting not at all at a fall or even decline of the Roman Empire. The Empire lived on through the people, buildings, and customs of Rome, even without the great markings of an empire like an emperor.

References:
[1] E. A. Thompson, Romans and Barbarians: The Decline of the Western Empire (Wisconsin, 2002)

https://books.google.co.uk/bookshl=en&lr=&id=BiXgsE7vsjcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=Thompson+romans+and+barbarians+&ots=n1KpXYR4bn&sig=8H4sIPgXL3f_dbQS8FnGXQTdDLg#v=onepage&q=Thompson%20romans%20and%20barbarians&f=false

[2] B. W. Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation (Oxford, 2006)

https://books.google.co.uk/bookshl=en&lr=&id=huoRDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=perkins+rome+&ots=Rm8JL5PEUf&sig=wbq-P08S6dVwwjl3rabiQQwWMyI#v=onepage&q=perkins%20rome&f=false

[3] https://www.historyextra.com/period/qa-when-did-italian-replace-latin-as-the-language-of-italy/

I agree, the Roman Empire in the West ceased to continue from 476, with Augustulus being the last emperor, this is hard to dispute. Equally, the argument I have attempted to pose (as you mentioned) is that we often take a very euro-centric view on the Fall of Rome, often failing to consider the continuation of the empire in Byzantium.

The Death Penalty was first abolished in Michigan, 1847, since then its role as a deterrent of murder began to be widely questioned by sociologists. 88.2% of the Law and Society Association claim states in America without The Death Penalty kept their murder rates lower than states which enforce the punishment.[1]. Based on the work of deterrence experts Bailey and Peterson- capital punishment is no more effective than long prison sentences, namely in Idaho, murder rates halved from 1977 at 6 murders per 100,000 citizens (when the death penalty was permitted) to 1993 with 3 murders per 100,000 citizens when the death penalty had been abolished. [2]

Furthermore, official statistics released by the Death Penalty Information Centre reinforce the argument that The Death Penalty is not a deterrent against murder. Upon analysing their 2016 data it is evident states with the death penalty (such as Louisiana) had higher murder rates than those without such as Illinois. With Louisiana’s 2016 murder rate at 12 murders, compared to Illinois at approximately 8 murders. [3] With murder rates in states with the Death Penalty staying below those with the punishment, it is evident the death penalty is not a deterrent against murder.

Aside from the experts, the general public has also been scrutinised as to whether they believe the death penalty has had a deterring effect away from murder. In a mailed questionnaire to 500 recipients, researchers Ellsworth and Ross asked whether the public agreed the Death Penalty acted as a homicide deterrent, only 3.1% of those asked said ‘we need capital punishment to show criminals we really mean business about wiping out crime’. [4] This demonstrates there are other valid ways to show murderers their behaviour will not be tolerated without killing them.

References:

[1] Amnesty International, ' A Clear Scientific Consensus that The Death Penalty Does Not Deter' (June 2009)

https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-deathpenaltydoesnotdeter/#:~:text=Scientists%20agree%2C%20by%20an%20overwhelming,penalty%20has%20no%20deterrent%20effect.&text=States%20without%20the%20death%20penalty,those%20that%20retain%20capital%20punishment

[2]Hugo Bedau, The Death Penalty in America (Oxford, 1998)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=M84JCAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA135&dq=Bailey+and+Peterson+death+penalty+&ots=vvEoXc6e_u&sig=lynFzZZZgbEAI8zshDTueu0BRQA#v=onepage&q=Bailey%20and%20Peterson%20death%20penalty&f=false

[3] Death Penalty Information Centre , 'Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-Death Penalty States'

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

[4]Radelet and Akers, 'Deterrence and The Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts' The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol 87 No1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1143970?casa_token=-JQt-c2ejswAAAAA%3A9wDpli0mkejfoyy9iN-H5XOgzgMu4WNjJVpM7zjOcFrJ2Ajqr1jtqhwGCzptmFv_C7IOZMhIPtmCPmsU6Ga5dSvy2ctiRLaaepkaYxPKn5Q2vOw&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents

Further reading:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/223436?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=Death+penalty+deterrent&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DDeath%2Bpenalty%2Bdeterrent%26filter%3D&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2Ftest&refreqid=fastly-default%3A2aeb358caddad14c78f923ef00650627&seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents