sarahbakayoko

Millennials and Gen Z aren't necessarily more sensitive than previous generations, but have a better appreciation of our differences and a willingness to learn and teach others

• We are more connected than ever before, and as a result come into contact with many different people online and act politely.
• Diversity continues to increase in schools and the workplace, meet different people and get to understand different cultures, backgrounds and their importance and why things may be culturally sensitive.
• More in touch with emotions: the older generations have the 'keep calm and carry on'/stiff upper lip mentality, whereas we grew up in a time where we can freely express every emotion.

Washing everyday is a good way to form good personal hygiene habits

• Washing everyday, alongside other personal hygiene habits like brushing your teeth helps you to start and end the day with a routine.
• Many cultures (and religions) have everyday washing as part of their day-to-day living and has never posed any significant problems.
• This is especially important if you are exercising, as build up of sweat can start to smell.
• Furthermore, with celebs making statements on their washing habits, if it was a working class citizen, they may be demonised by society rather than be seen as relatable.
• We still are in a global pandemic, and as masks and social distancing restrictions begin to ease, everyday washing (not just the hands), may contribute to better management of covid.

Piercing your children's ears is more about preventing them from remembering feeling the pain as older children and adults than a violation of consent

• The main reason to pierce a child's ear when they are young is so that they will not remember the pain. Children are known to be more medically resilient than adults. Then if they decide they don't want to wear earrings then that is their choice.

• It is ultimately a parent's choice whether or not they want to pierce their child's ear, but the consent arguments for babies and children raises a lot of other concerns. For instance, is it okay to publish your child's pictures on social media or do you have to wait until they can say yes or no? Are they able to receive vaccines? Are they able to dress in gender-conforming clothing or wait for them to choose a gender identity?

If we don't strive for happiness in ourselves and happiness in our circumstances then it becomes difficult to live life to the fullest.

• The pursuit of happiness, whilst seemingly idealistic, enables us as people to set out what kind of things we want to strive for. Specifically looking for the things, the people, the experiences that make us happy.

• It can be argued that the pursuit of happiness is probably easier to achieve in the modern day than it was for previous generations. This article contends that millennials are more likely to leave their jobs when they aren't satisfied, when this may not even be an option for older generations.

• It is likely that the definitions of happiness will vary between generations and cultures, which doesn't negate the pursuit of happiness argument, but supports different interpretations of it.

Morality and the desire to live ethically can be a source of happiness if it was feasible and accessible to everyone

• To live morally, in a world where your actions have indirect consequences is challenging and can be off-putting to some. Becoming a vegan, buying ethically made clothes can be great morally speaking, but constantly having to source out ethical things in a world where exploitation creates profit can be hard.

• For those that are unable to live morally due to economic reasons, are they any less moral/happy because living ethically is beyond their means?

• Those that follow a religion have their faith and morality tested throughout their lives, which can be seen as a source of happiness as it strengthens their relationship with their God/religious deity.

Individual morals aside, our legal systems have contributed to the creation of moral rules on a societal level, effectively creating an objective standard

• As a society , we agreed that murder is wrong, no matter the circumstances (including euthanasia), and put this into our laws ( a set of rules that everyone has to follow)

• However, it does not mean that individually we agree that euthanasia is wrong. There are some people that support the idea of euthanasia, and those that liken the process the murder. The same can be said for abortion.

• This demonstrates that society has determined some objective standards for morality and enshrined them in the law. This enables some objectivity for the state and permits the individual to exercise their free will and act according to their own set of morals.

• However, with morality, concepts are constantly changing. A few decades prior, homosexuality was not only immoral but also illegal. This means that even if morality was objective, it is subject to review.

The popularity of liberalism will not eliminate those with opposing views, and as a result, peace is never guaranteed

• In a realistic world, there will be people with opposing viewpoints. This will likely vary from generation to generation. This means that liberalism will likely not dominate across the world, but be popular in certain areas and at certain times.
• There may be more extreme versions of liberalism that may result in wars and violence. Just as there is extreme far-right groups, there can and have been many extreme far-left groups.
• Furthermore, new political ideas and political movements are constantly being created so people may have new political beliefs or be adjusting their positions on the political spectrum

With regards to ethnicity, social outcomes have to be related to social experiences, therefore, they cannot be partially biologically caused

• Biologically speaking, the main thing that separates us from each other is our skin colour. Scientists have affirmed that human beings are one human race
• Therefore, if our differences are only skin deep, the social outcomes cannot be partially biologically caused.
• Other factors, notably upbringing, income and culture will have more impact on social outcomes with reference to ethnic groups specifically.

Evolution, combined with modern psychological approaches contribute to our understanding of the psychological differences between men and women.

when combined with other factors, such as an environmental approach, this can further justify the psychological differences between the two genders**

• An evolutionary approach would suggest that men tend to be more aggressive than women. This was thought to be because in prehistoric times, males committing violent acts against other males competed for the female’s attention, which led to them producing more offspring.
• However, the weakness of such an approach does not acknowledge that evolution alone is insufficient in explaining the differences between men and women.
• Environmental alongside evolutionary approaches will help modernise the psychological explanations.
• For instance, upbringing plays a major role in the psychological differences. Men are taught to be more dominant, women are taught to be more submissive.
• Culture can also influence how men and women are brought up

The school system, whilst seeming to favour one sex over another, disservices both genders in different ways.

• In recent years, girls have been outperforming boys in school. The switch to teacher-based assessments (due to covid) saw girls [outperforming boys for a second year in a row in A-Levels] (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/aug/10/a-level-results-top-5-data-takeaways )
• However, research suggested that final exam based results favoured boys more than girls. This report indicates that girls have been successful in achieving the highest grades when their teachers are giving out grades. When things go back to ‘normal’, will this pattern resort back to boys outperforming girls?
• College and university admissions have increased in both genders, however, there are more girls at university than boys
• A biological explanation argued in this article suggests that girls mature earlier, given books sooner and learn more as a result. Furthermore, the ‘boys will be boys’ mentality still prevails today and may hinder learning as a result.

Different ethnic groups have different priorities on what is considered to be an important task

• Ability is subjective and depends on individual characteristics and access to resources to enhance the tasks.
• The stereotype that Asians are good at maths can be more harmful than beneficial. Although it seems complimentary on the surface, This article discusses the dehumanising nature of this stereotype.
• The fact that White people are sometimes depicted as the ones that are creative over the other ethnic groups may be because they've had more privilege in that they can afford to explore creative avenues. Minority groups in predominantly white countries feel the pressure to exceed in non-creative avenues to ensure job security, whereas the privilege that some white people have experienced may have allowed them to seek more creative endeavours.

Online dating has changed the ways in which we interact with each other for the foreseeable future

• Online dating may have changed the pace at which relationships progress. Because of the online nature of dating, there isn’t a defined period of time where friendship exists (unless you are already friends), and as a result may progress quicker than an in person relationship.

• The pandemic has even changed the way in which we date. This article addresses that there is a fear of dating during the pandemic and that fear brings a lot of uncertainty for people looking for relationships during this period.

• Dating online means that we are more subject to scrutiny. This page reinforces the idea that there is increased pressure to please people we have never met. Photos are double-checked and filtered, spelling errors are highlighted and we can make snap judgements on people based on their music and film taste without ever having met them in person.

Higher divorce rates means that people are realising that the ‘death do us part’ section of the vows does not apply if you are unhappy in the relationship

• This article contends that promoted women are more likely to be divorced. Higher divorce rates means that women are able to advance in their careers without marital constraints. It also means that they are able to find someone who supports their career goals.

• This (article)[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/marriage-rate-uk-latest-figures-lowest-record-ons-a9464706.html) tells us that marriage is also in decline and that people are getting married in their mid-30s as opposed to previous generations who married in their 20s. Perhaps this will indicate that the divorce rate will likely decrease because if people are getting married later/not getting married, they are less likely to divorce because they are more assured in their relationships.

Some people will conceal their prejudiced mindsets in certain environments to avoid repercussions

• People live in fear of so called cancel culture, so will try and act as if they do not have those beliefs in public. However, this ignores that racism does happen in private, suggesting that people will conceal their racist viewpoints in order to be seen as accepting.

• The concealing of racism and sexism will ultimately depend on their surroundings. Expressing racist and sexist viewpoints in a predominantly liberal space will be met with disapproval and appropriate punishment. However, in spaces where these views are the norm, concealing will be unlikely.

• It can be argued that these attitudes are not actively concealed. This is because it may manifest itself in the form of microaggressions, unconscious biases that have been ingrained and need to be unlearnt.

The closest thing we currently have to world governments have made no attempt to abolish war, so there is no reason to suggest that a world government would abolish war

• The League of Nations, set up to prevent the First World War, did nothing to prevent war, and may have even contributed to the Second World War. The Manchurian Crisis, Abyssinian Crisis and Germany’s departure from the League demonstrated the League’s inability to prevent war, so it would have been a difficult exercise to try and abolish war completely.
• The UN has failed to abolish law since its inception in 1948, and has failed to prevent many wars and crises , notably the Rwandan Genocide and the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
• Furthermore, abolishing war will not deter people from committing acts that will send countries to war, in the same way that slavery still exists long after its abolition.

A separation between church (all religions) and the state should mean that the state is not allowed to dictate how people observe their religions and whether that interferes with their life as a citizen of that state.

• The current idea of separation of church and state is an insufficient division.
• For instance, France claims to be secular after having separated church from state in 1905. Despite this, they are still passing laws that seemingly target people from certain religions.
• The 'burkini' ban was implemented due to religious reasons. However, if there was a true separation of the church and state, there wouldn't be a ban implemented as a woman's choice to wear that item of clothing is not an action against the state.
• Furthermore, that state is more heavily involved in the regulation in comparison to the UK, which has an official religion and the Queen is a Protestant Christian.

Nationalising the railways prevents the consumer being exploited by profit-hungry companies

• The UK is seeking to nationalise the railways under one organisation called [Great British Railways] which will provide contracts to train companies to run trains on the track.
• This system will provide a more accountable way to hold train operators to account. The government can be held to account, and as a result, a nationalised railway will be able to do the same. This can lead to increased customer satisfaction. as well as increased transparency.
• The railway industry in the UK depends largely on government investment anyway- nationalising it will help identify where further investment is required on a national level.

The amount of elites ignoring and perpetuating the world's problems can be seen as a cause of social unrest all around the world.

• We are too exposed to the elites. Through social media and the media in general, we have an awareness of the elites unlike anything that our predecessors experienced. From billionaires, to celebrities and now, influencers, we are constantly aware of their existence.
• Noticing their existence and trying to strive for what they have even though it is not ethically achievable can be a cause of social unrest.
• Furthermore, the fact that these elites exist and have the financial means to solve many of the world’s problems (hunger, climate change, poverty), but ignore them and actively cause these problems makes working populations angry and can cause social unrest.
• In the UK, the unemployment rate for recent graduates is 6.3%. Knowing that there are elites who control the way the market works but also reinforce the non-meritocratic nature of our society can cause unrest. This may be in the form of protests supporting different social justice causes like the BLM movement, Free Palestine, LGBTQ rights and many more. This can also lead to boycotts.

Theatre tickets should be subsidised for people with lower incomes, but not at the expense of the cast and crew

• Schemes that reduce the price of theatre tickets have already been introduced in some theatres in the UK. Incentives like [Young Barbican] (https://www.barbican.org.uk/join-support/young-barbican) and many others like this implemented by theatres to attract young people and help eliminate barriers preventing social cohesion.
• According to this article, 44% of London teenagers have never visited a theatre. Therefore, subsidising this could help reduce the inequalities between rich and poor and hopefully contribute to social mobility.
• However, the cast and crew should still be paid a fair amount.

Climate change is more than a social justice issue, it is a universal issue that affects us all

• Climate change does have roots in social justice. In the UK, air pollution contributed to a girl's death, which has since caused calls for a change in the law and making information about air pollution levels in the UK available to the public..

• In the United States, large populations of Latino and Black Americans live near heavily polluted areas compared to their white counterparts. As a result, there has been significant amounts of respiratory problems among these groups.

• However, whilst it is important to recognise climate change is a social justice issue, it is also an issue that affects us all in different ways, and identifying it as a social justice issue may not be beneficial as it requires a more urgent response.

Childcare should be free for those that need it the most, however, this should not be at the expense of the childcare providers

• In the UK, 3 to 4 year olds are eligible for 570 free hours in the year. Perhaps there is a case to be made that if these free hours of childcare were to be extended not just by hour but to other ages, it should be means-tested.

• This would be particularly useful for those that work low-wage jobs that do not cover the cost of childcare.

• However, this does not mean that staff should be compensated less as a result, or that the standard of care will be lower because it is free.

• Grandparents/relatives/friends often do this labour for free - but not everyone has access to this. There’s also a question as to whether they should do this labour for free. If they offer to help for free, then this can be seen as reasonable. However, some may argue that the parent(s) of the child(ren) should be able to afford the cost of childcare having agreed to (in most cases) having a child.

• In addition, If you are able to afford to pay for childcare, then you should be able to do so

Ultimately, it comes down to the perception of criminals and the nature of the crime

• First of all, it depends on whether you think people are inherently good or inherently evil. If man is good, then all criminals can be rehabilitated and their crimes are mistakes that can be fixed. If man is determined to be flawed or evil, then rehabilitation serves no purpose as they will still be evil despite trying to make up for their crimes.

• Recidivism rates will affect a person's ability to be rehabilitated. For instance, for sentences under 12 months, [the recidivism rate] (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872390/bulletin_Jan_to_Mar_2018.pdf) is 62%. The most common reoffending crime is theft. This is easier to rehabilitate in comparison to murder or assault, as it mainly relates to income.
  Depends on the crime and how early law enforcement intervenes

We should all be worried about the way in which we are surveilled, however that does not invalidate the process of surveillance

• Surveillance is very important in the hunt for terrorists, cybercriminals and hackers. However, it depends on the way in which we are watched and how this data is used.

• Taking the Cambridge Analytica Scandal as an example, that was a seemingly innocent questionnaire about their online habits, but the app was allowed to access far more information than deemed necessary and was used to target voters. Political infiltration and intervening with the democratic process on that scale can be extremely detrimental.

• The discussion surrounding potential ID verification for social media can also be extremely dangerous, especially with regards to free speech. Social media is a platform where we should be free to express what we want without it being linked back to us/surveilled by the government.

Non-integration does not mean non-appreciation

• It isn't an inherently bad thing to not be fully integrated - it is okay to have more than one culture.

• With this perspective, you are able to have strong attachments to multiple cultures without abandoning yourself and losing your identity.

• Greater appreciation of cultures - especially in a country where the first generation immigrant culture is a minority ethnic group.

• When westerners immigrate to other countries, they don't always integrate with the local culture and are not pressured to do so. They are called 'expatriates' as opposed to immigrants and have less burdens to integrate, compared to non-western people immigrating to western countries.

Although we have made great strides within the last century, we still have some way to go

• Women’s rights have come a long way - although this could definitely be improved financially speaking. The Global Gender Gap report indicates that no one alive today, or our children will see gender parity.

• LGBTQIA rights still need more pushing - HIV/AIDS stigma, homophobia and transphobia remain high despite strides being taken towards the recognition of their rights in the last decade.

• Race relations still contentious - this article demonstrates the existing racism in the UK and the struggle to elimate it in our lifetimes.

If academia is not your career aim, it may not be worth getting yourself into a high amount of debt for a degree

• Apprenticeships and vocational courses are more suited to a long term career as they train you from scratch; graduate jobs require some form of work experience. Apprenticeships will also allow you to gain some money whilst learning on the job - whereas with university (at least in the UK) it will ultimately cost you more in the long run with the maintenance loan.

• Additionally, research conducted by Student Beanshas told us that 36% of students had a part time job and 21% had two part time jobs alongside studying. This can negatively impact grades, university experiences, which makes the experience not worthwhile when you could have been earning more money working your way up in an entry level job.

• A survey carried out in 2014 found that half of UK graduates do not end up using their degree.

• This means that either the job market is being more accommodating for those from different degree backgrounds or there is a lack of people readily available with the skill sets necessary for the role and as a result would need to hire people from outside of their traditional pool.

Millennials have a conflicted relationship with their elders, but ultimately have the same goals to improve their societies.

• The previous generations (Baby Boomers and Generation X) refer to millennials as the lazy generation, in comparison to them, as they served in the war, and according to them worked a lot harder. Thanks to the work of these elder generations, millennials have been able to adapt their work and create a society that works for them.

• The claims that millennials are entitled (especially in the workplace) stem from the expectation to have a job after graduation, demanding certain salaries/asking for more than expected. Furthermore, a study by the University of Hampshire found that millennials scored 25% higher in entitlement-related issues compared to the baby boomer/generation x participants.

• However, millennials may contend that if they are perceived as lazy and entitled, it is because of their baby boomer/generation x predecessors who have passed this behaviour on.

• Millennials have made a name for themselves, pioneering the movement of making money out of your hobbies, and enjoying your work as opposed to working in the same job for 40 years.
  According to this research Millennials have a higher percentage of a female workforce (72%) compared with the previous generations.

• The same study found that only 46% of millennials are married, compared with 67% of baby boomers and 83% of the silent generation. This is indicative of a careers focused attitude, which allows millennials to concentrate on developing themselves before settling down with a family should they choose to do so.

• Not condoning affairs - but when relationships have past their prime or when problems start to arise, people find pleasure in non-committal sex. This shows that the lack of commitment may be the reason why people have affairs. However, this does not indicate that the sex is better, but explains why people are more inclined to have affairs.
• Multiple sexual partners can be helpful in determining sexual identity and sexual preferences.
• No romantic feelings or relationship commitments can be beneficial for those not looking for a permanent commitment, for instance friends with benefits.

Disney goes beyond children films; from the Marvel Cinematic Universe to Star Wars, it has a wide range of content that is enjoyed by millions across the world.

• Disney’s recent acquisition of Fox means that many properties including The Simpsons and the X-Men franchise are technically Disney films and TV shows, which adds to Disney’s superior quality.

• It also expands to theme parks across the world, where we can see our favourite characters come to life.

• From the original Disney classics, to Pixar, to new Marvel and Star Wars TV shows and films, they have lots of source material and lots of new arrivals to come that will appeal to different audiences.

• Disney, although it has been slow, is committing to more diversity

• Disney + subscribers reached 100 million 16 months after launching, whereas Netflix (where some SG films are located) took 10 years to reach this milestone

Although we have made strides towards ethical consumption, it is simply not achievable for all

• The Good Place, a philosophical sitcom discusses this notion. Buying flowers in the 1800s as a gift for someone was easIer as it had little effect on anyone else. However , buying flowers in 2021 where workers are exploited and carbon footprint considerations - harder to be ethical and good when the world has evolved in a way that exploits the planet and exploits others.

• Furthermore,In capitalism, the poorer people simply do not have the funds to be ethical, it costs money, more than they make. Richer people will start preaching an ethical lifestyle to poorer people that they simply cannot afford. For instance, shopping for conscious fashion will be more expensive than going somewhere cheaper like Primark. Does this mean that poorer people should feel guilty about not living ethically?

Rather than a personal choice, it is a personal choice influenced by societal attitudes and unconscious biases that have caused a pay gap

• According to this Forbes article, careers where there are a lot of females generally pay less

• Furthermore, [this study] (https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/negotiating-gender-roles-gender-differences-assertive-negotiating-are-mediated-women’s-fear-backlash) carried out by Harvard Kennedy School, men report higher frequencies of assertive behaviour than females, suggesting that they exhibit this behaviour more frequently, not that women are incapable of being assertive. The study found that women have the same abilities to be assertive, but are more conscious of the context, indicating that it is a personal choice influences by societal attitudes.

• It is my belief that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege. If we have a right to life per Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, we have a right to access resources that help us maintain that life.

• Public healthcare initiatives like the NHS should receive adequate funding to provide good enough healthcare so people aren’t forced to go private when they cannot afford to do so. Reducing wait times and investing in the healthcare system will ensure that people do not need to go private in the first place.

• However, putting pressure on one public health authority will lead to inevitable shortages of money and long waiting lists - which means that if you can afford to circumvent the long waiting times and go to another provider you should be able to do so.

• Furthermore, any payments made to improve the experiences of one patient should not disadvantage other patients who do not have the funds.

Charitable support, combined with social security is the best way to help the genuinely disadvantaged

• By suggesting charities are better than social security, it suggests that governments will be absolved of their responsibility to their citizens, which should not be the case. More often these problems do result from economic hardship and government mis-handlings which aren’t the fault of charitable organisations.

• Furthermore, charities alongside social security support would be the ideal way to help, because both are often insufficient on their own. For instance, Universal Credit payments in the UK are £411 a month if you are a single adult over the age of 25, £344 if you're under the age of 25. Rents, bills and food often cost more than this a month, so an ideal combination of the two would help massively.

• Charities are often less biased and don’t have political agendas, their objective is to help people that need it the most.

• Despite this, they are also bound by budgetary restraints so it may be harder to help those that need it. Taxpayers will continue to pay taxes to governments who will provide state assistance

• Charities tend not to change their policies (and consequently their budgets) according to whoever is leading them

The amount of tests in secondary education in England can and has negatively impacted children’s mental health.

When taking their GCSEs, consisting of around 10-20 individual exams, this can no doubt be a stressful time.

A lot of pressure is placed on the importance of excelling in exams and less so on the acquisition of knowledge and enjoying time at school. Having gone through the system myself, revising for 22 exams took the enjoyment out of school and was preoccupied about the future instead of being appreciative of the present and being young.

In 2018/19, Childline offered 2,795 counselling sessions about exam stress specifically, a third of these taking place in April and May (the time when most GCSE pupils sit their exams)

According to [Childline] (https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2019/young-people-struggling-cope-exam-stress/), some of the young people’s concerns including disappointing their parents, fear of failure, excessive workloads and lack of motivation. Others reported suicidal ideation and self-harm.

These statistics are from the year before the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns, which saw a major shift in how pupils were examined. GCSEs were cancelled, which some saw as a relief and others felt disappointed that their hard work was going to be wasted - for example this article in [Young Minds] (https://youngminds.org.uk/blog/how-im-coping-with-exams-being-cancelled/) reflects both of these perspectives

It will be interesting to see if there will be any significant reform in education post-covid, especially as the last year has shown that teachers and schools can be more adapting, and whether any considerations will be made for the mental health of pupils sitting exams.

Some curbs on civil liberties are necessary to achieve peace, however these must be necessary and proportionate

France’s [Senate] (https://nation.com.pk/01-Jul-2021/french-senate-adopts-anti-terrorism-bill-with-controversial-provisions) adopted counter terrorism measures aimed at strengthening internet surveillance by analysis of internet algorithms and obtaining data from internet service providers that indicate a terrorist threat. This controversial measure also includes shutting down places of worship and blocking access to the state’s secret archives.
Allowing the government to have access to our search histories, to our internet activity can be seen as an invasion of privacy. Whilst some may see it as a necessary sacrifice to achieve peace, it can be seen as heading towards a police state where our actions are constantly monitored.
Algorithms can be [biased] (https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-recognition-transparency) ; they are made by humans, governments and organisations who have biases and agendas of their own. Counter terrorism algorithm measures are likely to unfairly target Muslims and people of colour, and will fail to acknowledge the potential of white terrorists.
Preemptively shutting down places of worship is an unnecessary curb on a civil liberty (right to a religion). Again, this will likely affect one group more than another.

The class/nationality divide ultimately depends on what the country is and their perspective on immigration and class division.

As a whole, it is hard to talk about the classes on a worldwide plane. This is because a working class person in a lower-income country compared to a working class person in a higher-income country may have different experiences, different rates of pay, and different perceptions.

When introducing yourself in general conversation, people normally ask where you are from first (particularly if you are a foreign national, leaning towards a nationality division.
In the UK, there is an argument to be made that race (nationality) and class both play substantial roles in dividing a population. The white working class is said to be one of the most neglected groups in the country. The Education Committee wrote a report on this [here] (https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/203/education-committee/news/156024/forgotten-white-workingclass-pupils-let-down-by-decades-of-neglect-mps-say/).

Furthermore, the ethnic pay gap concentrates on class and ethnicity, which shows that there is division between different races and their respective classes.

Although this recent [report (https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2019) from the ONS suggests that the gap between White British people and ethnic minority groups in the UK is narrowing

The only times when a one night stand is wrong is when it happens without consent and when there is a mutual agreement between 2 or more people not to have sex with other people is violated

• We live in a society that is a lot more sex positive than previous generations. A cultural shift that has become more accepting of casual sex, polyamory and the spectrum of sexualities. This may be evidenced through more representation and discussion in popular culture.
• The [British Sex Survey] (https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/sep/28/british-sex-survey-2014-nation-lost-sexual-swagger) tells us that 49% of those surveyed had a one night stand and 30% of 25-34 year olds had a one night stand with someone they met online. This survey took place in 2014, before the increased popularity of dating apps like Tinder and Hinge, and interactions on social media became the norm. It is possible that for the next survey the numbers may be a lot more different.
• One night stands enable individuals to determine whether they like sex and how it can be a positive experience for them.
  It allows for sex (and more importantly sexual pleasure) without a prolonged attachment for those not seeking a relationship.
• Demonising one night stands only leads to them happening in secret and more dangerously (for instance, without protection and where the lines of consent become blurry).

Even when societal issues affect men, they are normally are caused or originate from men

• For instance, the amount of men affected by mental health issues and high suicide rates is troubling and should be addressed. However it can also be argued that these numbers are the way they are because other men have reinforced these masculine values that men have to be tough and strong, and hide whatever issues they have. Despite this, society is generally moving away from this stereotype and being more accommodating of men’s mental health.
• Furthermore, women upholding misogynistic values and policing other women's behaviour is a symptom of patriarchy, a behaviour started by men and internalised by women. [Internalised misogyny] (https://feminisminindia.com/2020/08/31/6-things-internalised-misogyny-ruined-for-women/) can be dismantled as long as we change our mindsets and support other women.

Do men have higher sex drives or have they just been allowed to express their desire for sex more freely than women?

• According to this study biologically speaking, men do have higher sex drives because of the presence of testosterone. However, this study does not acknowledge the social and psychological factors that contribute to sexual desire.

• Generally speaking, it has been more acceptable for men to express their sexual desire for their sexual partners and even for strangers in comparison to women. This may mean that men have a higher sex drive just because they are simply used to having the authority to express this.

• Women may have higher sex drives than men, but this may be difficult to prove biologically.

• Women have generally been taught to be submissive to men and to keep their sexual desires to themselves to avoid tempting men. This has origins in the Bible or the Abrahamic religions where Eve tempted Adam and got kicked out of the Garden of Eden. This may result in pent up sexual desire or just not expressing it in the same way men do.

• Alternatively, both sexes may have fluctuations in sex drives, some may have zero to very litle sex drive, whereas others may be higher than average.

TL;DR : Not teaching children about sex when they are in primary school can lead to misunderstandings when they become older.

• Children are naturally curious and will begin to ask questions about their bodies, ask questions about relationships. Equipping these children with the knowledge of what their bodies can do reproductively will educate them and will also give them the responsibility and autonomy that they will need in the future.
• Making it a taboo, forbidden topic will inspire curiosity, unsafe relations and misunderstandings that spread through rumours. Abstinence only approaches can be more harmful than intended as they leave women and people with vaginas particularly vulnerable.
• Abstinence only stances have led to higher rates of teenage pregnancy in conservative states, which reinforces the importance of early intervention with regards to sex education.

Smartphones and the accompanying applications can have dangerous implications

• Increased and unprecedented accessibility - The internet has enabled communication and access to resources like never before. Since the development of smartphones which are able to connect to the internet, it has created a need to be constantly connected. Whether this is to our friends, people we've connected with online through social media or to work/education, it has essentially facilitated the ways in which we are accessible to each other, which can be dangerous. It can manifest itself in addictive tendencies, or even abusive tendencies - for instance cyber harassment and trolling.
  Impact on mental and physical health:
• Smartphone use has been connected to depression and loneliness in young people according to a study from the University of Arizona (https://news.arizona.edu/story/which-comes-first-smartphone-dependency-or-depression)
• Driving - drivers using their smartphones and other electronic devices are four times as likely to crash, injure or kill themselves/other people (https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/mobile-phones-and-driving-factsheet.pdf)

Marx’s theories have stood the test of time, but need to be modernized in order to have applicability in present day

• As the first great critic of capitalism, he identified the relationships between the bourgeoisie (who generate profit by paying their workers less than the value of goods/services they produce) and the proletariat (the workers who exchange their labour for income). This description of the relationship between employers and employees still exists and explains the need for unions.
• Marxists contend that employers must maximize profits by keeping wages as low as possible, but they must also continue to sell products, which becomes increasingly difficult as workers’ buying power is limited by low wages. This is evidenced by modern slavery, sweatshops and the minimum wage not being sufficient enough.
• Despite the failure of Marxist revolutions, his ideas continue to have relevance across the world. After the financial crisis in 2007/8, mistrust of banks and capitalism increased as they sought out government bailouts (which the working taxpayer would have to subsidize). However this may not mean support for Marxism but rather dislike of capitalism.
• Furthermore, Marx’s ideas are limited to his time period. More modern interpretations, like intersectionality, are more accurate to describe the world that we currently live in. [intersectionality and marxism] (https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/articles/intersectionality-and-marxism)

Whilst gender bias is a main reason for inequality between men and women, it is important to consider other factors in play, such as race and class.

• Gender bias is the root of inequality between men and women due to the patriarchal society we live in. Breaking this down even further helps us to identify other key sources of inequality.
• For example, Marxist feminists believe that women are exploited through capitalism and individual ownership of private property and the only way to achieve liberation is to dismantle the oppressive capitalist regimes that do not compensate women’s labour adequately.
• Taking an intersectional approach, Hazel Carby highlights the ways that values of the family are different for black women and men, just as the division of labor is also racialised. This shows that gender bias on its own is insufficient to explain the inequalities between men and women and stresses the importance of intersectionality.

Carby, Hazel (1982), "White woman listen! Black feminism and the boundaries of sisterhood", in Gilroy, Paul (ed.), The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 70s Britain, London New York: Routledge in association with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham, pp. 211–234, ISBN 9780415079099

TL:DR - Luck is subjective and relative, it depends on what you deem as lucky or unlucky.

• If referring to financial prosperity - with the way capitalism is intended to work, there will always be unlucky people. According to Karl Marx, as long as the means of production is not in the hands of the workers, there will always be exploitation and people who benefit from that will be luckier than those who are exploited.
  [Marxism definition] (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marxism.asp)
• If referring to luck in its traditional sense, it’s all very subjective and it all depends on your viewpoint. If you believe that you’re lucky or fortunate, you are likely to have a more positive perspective of life. However if you’ve had some negative experiences that contribute to your belief that you are unlucky, it can be harder to identify the positives. Essentially it’s about positive and negative thinking.
  -Even if one believes they are unlucky, it may be possible to change their luck(or at least change their mindset).
  -Psychological therapy/counselling/life coaches can assist in changing mindsets
  -To improve your chances at achieving what you want to achieve there are steps you can take. For instance if you want to be a lawyer but feel bogged down by circumstances, things like going to university and getting good grades, participation in extra curriculars etc can substantially improve your chances, even if the outcome isn’t guaranteed.

TL:DR - Love Island (LI) is not designed to be the peak of morality - its aims are to provide harmless entertainment.

• I recognise that LI has been the centre of much controversy in recent years - especially with the suicides of former cast mates and Caroline Flack, but it is hard to establish a causal link between their mental health and the show. For instance, In the case of Caroline Flack, the suicide may have been unrelated to the show but a result of personal issues. Unfortunately, banning the show will not undo their tragic deaths or the issues that may be linked to these deaths.

• LI is meant to be a harmless reality TV show centred around finding love and arguably more recently, increasing the followings of the cast. Banning the show will not solve any of the issues that its critics raise, for instance unrealistic beauty standards and self-esteem issues. These exist outside of the show.

• Despite it being 'reality' tv, there are elements of it that are manipulated for entertainment purposes, which increases the drama, and in turn, viewership. Essentially, it is becoming closer to scripted television and the producers have more control over the content of the show, so it is down to audience to consume their content should they wish to do so. This means that it is not necessarily the show that is the problem, but the way the audience reacts to the show.

• Despite its negative impact, LI as a show has expanded to 15 countries, and has even created a game. In addition, one could argue that LI has paved the way for more love reality TV shows like Love is Blind, which was hugely popular last year and Too Hot to Handle. Banning one show without banning the others and the whole premise of these types of reality tv shows just limits viewer consumption but doesn't really resolve the deeper problems

Children and adolescents are somewhat adequately protected, but could benefit from additional protection

• Children and adolescents benefit from parental restrictions on online activity, increased regulation surrounding the welfare of children and teenagers and assistance from the state in the form of schools and social services.
• However, it is always possible to bypass these regulations, neglect young people and be in contact or proximity with dangerous adults/other young people.
• Whilst there are protective measures in place and work effectively, there could be increased measures in place, especially in the form of protection whilst online/social media. If it poses harm to adults, then imagine the harm posed by children?

Society doesn't celebrate victimhood, we acknowledge that some people have had things unfairly inflicted upon them and strive to raise awareness and do better

• Previous generations had the "stiff upper lip" and "suck it up" mentality which left a lot of issues unresolved and unacknowledged. This goes for issues like racism, sexual abuse and domestic violence
• Today, we recognise that silence is violence and it's always important to speak up, so that these issues are dealt with promptly and don't repeat themselves, ending a vicious cycle.
• The word victim has negative connotations and often do not reflect the behaviour of those affected, a more appropriate word would be survivor or activist.

Whilst university may be a cause of depression in students, it may be caused by a variety of factors closely linked to university.

• From an environmental psychological perspective (nuture), there is a case to be made that the university environment, i.e, being away from family, increased careers pressure and finding an identity can be depressing.

• However, the biological psychologist (nature) perspective acknowledges that students who become depressed at university were already biologically and psychologically predisposed to develop depression, this may have been triggered by university but is not the main cause.

• Furthermore, it is hard to determine whether university institutions are the cause of depression as opposed to the educational structures upheld by society.

The prime function of schooling should be the provision of secondary socialisation and equipping young people with the skills necessary to cohabit amongst other adults in society.

Whilst the importance of finding a career is something that schools should and do offer, it should not be the primary focus. Schools are a key agent of secondary socialisation and as a result, should be focusing on the overall development of children into adults. This is an important, character-defining time, and to focus on careers that do not define them is futile. Developing hobbies and interests, like sports, music and arts whilst at school allows for young people to determine who they are and what they like. An emphasis on "life skills", like reading, writing, cooking, and to an extent being computer literate, would be a more appropriate stance to take, and during the learning of these skills, young people can start to determine where they would want to continue these interests in a potential career.

Neglecting this in favour of a careers-focused stance can be extremely limiting, and can create regretful adults that didn't have the space to explore their interests as a child and don't have time as working adults to do this.

This stance is reflective of the society that we are in now, in which groups of young people are unable to find careers that satisfy their needs and desires. This leaves people either hopping aimlessly from job to job, or stuck in a job they don't necessarily like but stay in because of the security.

The education system as it stands is not adequately equipped to support the needs of those whose careers are untraditional.

To contend that school serves as a precursor to a job reinforces this capitalist narrative that we are born to serve capitalism, and doesn't offer us a chance to develop as human beings.