Archive for 2015

Home Archive for 2015

So sexuality is quite possibly one of the most bizarre and complex concepts in our society. (Keeping the tone equally as deep and severe as always). Such complexity is perhaps why it astounds me that one sexuality is assumed for the entire population of the planet and a person is required to state otherwise. Within sexuality we are able to define sexual attraction as a separate division to romantic attraction and your orientation need not be the same in both areas. And further beyond this within each division of sexuality there lies spectrums of where you may lie. Those widely acknowledged, though admittedly not all respected, appear to be bisexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality. Not only does "bi-erasure" exist whereby those who identify as bisexual are deemed "indecisive" and "greedy", with very few characters in the media being portrayed under such an identity, but there are many more sexualities that are totally foreign concepts.

Before I get into what these other labels entail and additionally how they have come to be, the whole premise of labels must be dealt with. Numerous times in the past I have heard and seen people questioning the purpose of a label and why people make such a big deal about assigning themselves one. I feel like labels are a very personal part of our identities and that it helps to relate to a word summarising yourself in a way that then links you to a community of others. However I also recognise that we may be moving into a period where it is not as an important necessity to be defined by a certain label which proposes a further development - why does the need to befit a pre-existing identity prevail? Why do I have to be gay, straight, pansexual, cupiosexual etc? Am I not at liberty to go with it and just see what happens? It is this liberation, this new found emancipation from archaic concepts that suggests we need not be so quick to name ourselves. But I really do think this is a long way off, that people are comforted by a term that suits how they feel and in turn allows them to feel unified by it. This familiarity has led to dozens of new sexualities arising among platforms of social media and beyond.

To say "new" sexualities would be a lie. There is nothing new about the feelings people experience which have, in fact, resided as long as humans have had the capacity to feel. The means of attraction have just been broken down and split up into much smaller brackets and there is so much more than just straight and gay. (Side note: gay can just be an umbrella term for anyone in the LGBTQ+ community). It is now recognised that there are people who have no attraction, very little attraction, attraction only to those identifying outside the gender binary and so on. I believe it is absolutely vital that everyone is aware that such sexualities exist and are valid - they are valid the moment someone chooses to identify as it and you nor I are in any position to erase that. I'm not going to sit here and list them all; I want you to take your own time to sit and educate yourself, use the incredible tools at your disposal to ensure you are not at risk of erasing such an ingrained element of someone's own individual identity.

This also leads on to the very premise of heteronormativity. This expansion of the sexual spectrum must and should correlate to the wonders of the media - it is social media itself at the hurricane's eye of the advancement we have before us. And yet other forms of media are so far behind. You barely have to turn your head to see that the representation of, well, anything that isn't heterosexual, is appalling and astonishingly low. In adverts, films, TV shows, books magazines and everything else imaginable we are graced with straight couple after straight couple. So when, in the social justice side of twitter and tumblr you see the words "I hate straight people" adorning someone's profile and your straight pride is severely damaged, please step back and assess the situation. It is similar in this effect to reverse racism: masses of social structures celebrate and give power to heterosexuals and allow them to advance while others trail far behind, facing the aftermath of what straight privilege allows. Someone saying that they "hate straight people" is essentially them hating the institutions and social concepts created by straight people to benefit themselves.

Moreover, determining our society as one of progression does not factor in the ways in which we have progressed. While, yes, there has been extraordinary improvement in comparison with how it once was but we've entered an age where gay relationships are now fetishised. The classic "gay best friend" exclamation after someone comes out suggests that our society is accepting of homosexuals only when they exist to serve a purpose to the heterosexuals. Despite common belief, gay people are not pets nor are they yours to befriend the minute they publicise their sexuality. Far less are guilty of critiquing gay pride festivals and the like but so, so many people are quick to pull the gay best friend card and every time it is used, the gay community is objectified and their individual identities erased for your gain.

This has been a complete mess and compilation of a few things running through my mind. I think, at a glance, we can look at sexuality by its face value. But it is genuinely a very overwhelming and complicated matter and is not made an easy one to discover ourselves when so much of it is shamed and fetishised and still not accepted across the world. Given its importance to many individuals it is also an easy mistake to take it as an entity, that sexuality is all that makes up a person. We are all more than our parts and if we are able to find a way to accept and love who we are, it shouldn't matter what anyone else believes. Please don't rush into trying to label yourself and remember the most important thing I want you to take away from this: sexuality is fluid. You have every right to change your mind as frequently as you please and anyone who can't accept that about you isn't worth having around.

Charlotte

I've wanted to talk about the refugee crisis (REFUGEE. Not migrant. Although I'll probably talk about where I stand with that in a bit.) for a really long time. And how it has literally become so stigmatised (hence the snazzy title) and created such a vile moral panic that it makes me want to scream repeatedly at a wall. Usually with these kind of topics I'd do my research heavily so that what I'm saying essentially can't be proved wrong. Or so I know I'm really sure of myself and my views and that the reasons I believe them are legitimate. But I've thought about it with this whole situation and if you want the statistics you can google them. I've come to my conclusions without solid evidence and I am well aware my thinking is flawed but that's the best part.

I don't even know the full historical context, I don't know why there is a war in Syria and I'd love to make the time to sit down and really understand the political ins and outs but for now this is how I feel without any of that. I think, first of all, it's absolutely disgusting that the media chose only to adopt a sympathetic narrative (using the term "refugee" over "migrant") after the image of the boy on the beach was released. It makes you wonder how long we could have gone on treating these people with such vile disdain, had the image never have been taken. The boy would still have been found dead on a beach, just with no photographic evidence. The fact that it took a public reaction to the image for our government to show sympathy on the matter is terrifying. These people died before and after and during the release of the devastating image. I think it speaks volumes that people had to see the horrific realities of the Syrian crisis before they would acknowledge the problem, that it wasn't their issue until they were exposed to it despite the war beginning years ago. It makes me feel sick to my stomach that, in debates surrounding the refugee crisis, those advocating for more action in Europe have to adopt the argument that these people are human beings. They come from whatever country and are travelling for whatever reason and are still human beings. First and foremost. When these human beings are making life threatening journeys across dangerous land and seas just to escape, something is wrong. I don't understand how anyone can fault the intentions of these people; whether they're travelling for money or for safety they are all making these awful treks just for their cause. I couldn't possibly begin to imagine what thought processes must occur for someone with children and a partner to find the most viable option one which doesn't promise survival. We need to remove ourselves from the situation, allowing a wider perspective. Families with very young children are risking everything, sailing on tiny raft like structures across stupid lengths of water just to be met with an even longer journey ahead.

Is Britain doing enough? I guess relatively, yes. But no. European countries, and saying that, the world in general, should be doing considerably more to help these people. Yes it is a good start and anything done to help these people is something, at least. But according to something I read in my Law lesson a few weeks ago, during the Balkan crisis we took in about 75,000 refugees a year and our infrastructure managed perfectly. We are taking in 20,000 refugees across 5 years. Additionally we're taking them from the camps in Syria which erases all the people already taking the dangerous journey across Europe.

I also wanted to briefly add that if someone is willing to go through those conditions and that physical hardship in order to gain the opportunities of a better life, how can we ridicule them? We were born with the right to these things so we can't put ourselves in that position, can't imagine facing near death experiences in the hope of a life we take for granted every day. If "economic migrants" are taking the same trip as people fleeing from war and conflict something is severely wrong with the infrastructure of the land they are leaving and we must treat the root cause, of course, but we have the capacity to offer these people opportunities that are given to us without a second thought. Why not them? I actually heard someone suggest the other day that we filter the people striving for citizenship in Britain so that only the best people are allowed through our borders. I shudder to think what would come of those deemed not worthy of our system.

My thoughts are a bit of a mess here and I often change my mind on where I stand but all the same, it astounds me that arguing that these people are human beings is something that even needs to be pointed out. They never chose to be born into a country of warfare and corruption. You and I are blessed to have been born into a 1st world, western, developed country. From day one it was almost guaranteed that we would never have to put our lives in danger and make hellish travels across a continent to be safe or to find a better quality of life. What entitled me to that over someone born on Syrian soil? If you refrain from religious perceptions, what made me any better as a five year old child than the one lying dead on the beach? And why, knowing that we have this incredible privilege where we aren't caught in the middle of a war where our lives are endangered, can we not help? You aren't fucking superior to them just because you were lucky enough to have parents who chose to give you citizenship in this country. You literally are a human. They are literally humans. The difference between you is created by borders and it is those man made lines on a map which are making a frightening number of people be so against helping another human being in a situation out of their control. I've argued about this in school and people are so prone to suggesting that we have to protect Britain, British values and our culture. If British society dictates that we are too self-righteous and bigoted that we refuse to do everything we can (which, by the way, is a lot more than we are doing currently) to help these humans, then I'm ashamed. I feel honoured and lucky to be instilled with British values, to have been raised where I have been, and been provided with the education, food, healthcare etc that has been provided for me, which is why I can't quite believe the reaction of the public and the media narrative towards this issue. It's been disturbing and alarming and a genuine shock.

As I said, this is just a random collection of what seems to run through my mind whenever the topic arises. I don't think I'm right, I'm not educated enough on the issue to give an informed opinion so this is just views which were products of my experiences and my own values. I also don't have a practical solution and it makes me want to curl up in a ball and cry when people argue back with: "Well, how do we solve it then?" I DON'T KNOW. I wish I did. But I have no idea and I am just emotionally whining over how we seem to have lost touch with the idea of humanity when I still believe so firmly in the solidarity of humankind.

I, of all people, know how hard it is to a) make time for reading and b) pick it up again after you haven't for so long. At the stat of this year and briefly in the summer I hardly read at all and couldn't break out of that slump for quite some time. You need to find the right book to crack it but also you need to dedicate the time to reading and to properly delve into the story. To do that, you could go really far and create the whole environment in hope that that is what you need; you could make a cup of tea with some biscuits, put some very tumblr aesthetic fairy lights on and play some music, although I can't really focus with most genres on. I tend to be comfiest reading in bed but change the way I'm lying/sitting honestly, about everything 3 pages. No one ever said reading wasn't ugly. (God, if the wind changed while I was reading...)

So, make a good old cup of tea - a tiny bit of milk and one sugar is always the way forward. Don't fight me on this. EVER. A tidy room always helps although I tend to use reading as my reason not to tidy my room anyway, so... Definitely have the curtains closed unless you need to natural lighting, shut your door and make sure you're warm. As I said, sometimes I struggle with background noise, especially music, but that being said I do have a long list of musical recommendations for when you're settling down with a book. Film scores, I always find, are really excellent backing tracks if they fit the mood of your book and aren't too captivating. I will always, always recommend the film scores of Like Crazy, the Kiera Knightley version of Pride and Prejudice and also The Theory of Everything. Among others these are really wonderful pieces of music. Lucky for you, I created a Spotify playlist with all my favourite songs to play when I'm reading! Here it is: https://open.spotify.com/user/charlotteto/playlist/1sGe1pWhtR7ogxlGGxkWQT

On to the real cause for writing any of this: books which pull you out of that awful reading slump. There are a few that have always worked for me but I think it depends a lot on what you like to read. Don't push yourself to read anything you doubt you'll enjoy because that will only take you further away from it. If you're not a classics person, don't pick up Wuthering Heights and expect to be fine and dandy because it will create a psychological aversion to reading which, obviously, is the last thing you want. So, with that in mind, I'll mention a few that have made me want to read another 40 books and never stop. Attachments by Rainbow Rowell is just a really lovely read. It's very easy to read but it's story was different to a lot of things I had ever read and additionally, before anyone turns their nose up knowing Rowell as a primarily young adult author, this book is classified in the library as adult fiction. It's very entertaining for anyone who's still growing up now and wasn't able to comprehend their environment in 1999 (I was born in September of that year so, no, not in a state to process my surroundings). Set in that very year it follows a nerdy young man working at a company where his job is to read through emails of a company which have been flagged up for various reasons, usually inappropriate, non work related conversations. He falls in love with someone through her emails with her friend while also dealing with something which now seems ludicrous - at the turn of the millennium from 1999 to 2000 something called the Y2K bug was a massive issue. Essentially it involved the transition in terms of the date on computers when the year changed. (Read more here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2000_problem). With their old technology an amusing contrast to our current advancements, it does make me smile. The love story is different and unique and gives an insightful perception to the superficiality of many relationships, with our two lovers not meeting until late on. Friendship is also a huge part of it and I think that it would be a really great read for a wide age range for various reasons.

My second recommendation is a YA book. If you have any prejudice, either scroll down or get over yourself and give it a shot. It's not the most well written and, of course, it's a dystopian society. It's a book called The Program by Suzanne Young and I read it so quickly that I wondered how I'd ever stopped in the first place. The book is quite relatable despite its futuristic setting and I'd describe it as strangely topical, or at least aligned with the general narrative of social media. It deals with topics of suicide and physical indicative signs of depression as an illness. Having read it a while ago before I became more educated and aware of mental illnesses I couldn't say how accurate and sensitive it was, so I wouldn't recommend it if the topic is one you're dealing with yourself or is close to home. However when I did read it, I was out of my reading slump straight away regardless and that was the aim. I haven't read the second book in the series and have no inclination to, I wouldn't rate it in a literary sense at all but in terms of serving its purpose, definitely.

Next is actually a "classic" but far from the horrifying syntax of things like Kerouac's On The Road. A Little Princess by France's Hodgson Burnett is a children's novel published back in 1905. Since it is written for children it is such an easy read which really allows you, as an older reader, to devour the contents of the story. It has some really cool (is that the right word? I thought it was cool...) deeper meanings and areas for analysis as well as employing a timeless plot which will always have relevance in our society. It challenges your morals and forces you to place yourself in the shoes of various characters while also giving you insight into a 20th century experience which you might not have really had before. You'll read it in one sitting, maximum two, and I give a 90% promise that it'll propel your eagerness for reading instantly. As a teenager I think that I found it easy to relate with Sara who is mentally far beyond her years which, I think, was also a really cool concept of the book. Due to this I'd say that it will always be enjoyable to all ages as long as they accept the simple style of writing.

Looking at my bookshelf there are loads more I'd love to mention. The One by Kiera Cass is another YA read which was equal parts amusing, stupid and enticing but with such mixed reviews I couldn't recommend it. Things like Anna and the French Kiss by Stephanie Perkins and that whole series are fantastic if you're on board with mushy, textbook romance with some unique and well written characters. Harry Potter is an obvious one and the first book alone is so quick and fun that it should put you back on track whether it's your first of 50th time reading the novel. Ballet Shoes by Noel Streatfeild is another 20th century wonder written for a young audience with the sweetest, loveliest plot and characters which I absolutely adore. My main piece of advice is to allocate the time and ensure the book is right - read something you've read and loved before and go for something simple and quick. I really do rate the children's novels of the 1900s. If you're still stuck for ideas there's a bunch of YouTube videos on this, but my first port of call would always be my mum (who is also a librarian, like me!), my English teachers, and the Internet.

P.S with books like A Little Princess and Ballet Shoes which I've owned my whole life, I'd more than happily lend them out to people who know me in real life! Hit me up. ;)

Charlotte. X

P.P.S How does a post on reverse racism or rape sound next? I've been quite rant-y so far this week and I need a healthy outlet. Also I feel like a sexuality and gender awareness post is in order. Let me know :)

Ok wow. In desperation to do at least one post that isn't based completely on bloody education, for once I figured I would just discuss some of my all time favourite book quotes. For anyone who has spent about a week in my company, you'll be able to guess at least half of the books these quotes will come from because I probably don't shut up about them. (Sorry?) (But not really.)

Obviously, the first simply has to be from one of the most wonderfully written books I have ever read and will continue to read over and over until I tire of it - which won't be happening soon. My first copy of this book has been in my house as long as I can remember, my second copy is a first edition and a gift from my brother and my third copy is a beautiful hardback which I received from a friend for my 15th birthday. Don't ask why it's necessary to own 3 different copies. It's not. Without further ado the first book featuring in this post is Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. (A thousand avid YA readers hearts fall. Just kidding. The only 3 people who read this must have at least read Pride and Prejudice, if not adored it at the extent to which I do.) There are so, so many different quotes I could pick from and have reasons for doing so, and it's really quite hard to choose just one. The thing with this book is that I actually prefer the plot and general story of Northanger Abbey, but I fell in love so hard with Lizzie and her funny little experiences and I can't go back on that now. I'm going to cheat a little bit here and list which parts of Austen's novel I was torn between, as there is so many... First of all; "I must learn to be content with being happier than I deserve." It can be interpreted in so many different ways according to each individual's situation and I actually have this quote on my bedroom wall. Another I had to tuck away instead of presenting it in my top five is "But people themselves alter so much that there is something new to be observed in them forever." I think that it's just a really nice phrase and that it's very valid in assessing the intricacies of human nature. Alas (now I'm writing like Austen) I have reached a conclusion. "Till this moment, I never knew myself." Other than being wonderfully poetic in its arrangement, those who have read the book will be aware that this epitomises the title "Pride and Prejudice" and as a self-destructive hopeless romantic this quote particularly is equal in weight to either of Darcy's proposals. Lizzie realises here that she too has been guided by her own pride and prejudice and it is this which allows the entire story to progress. While I adore Darcy's first proposal in all its angst and glory, I love that this quote is a product of his apology in repose to Elizabeth's reasons not to marry him. There are so many lines in Pride and Prejudice which hold so much personal worth to me and I could write a whole post on the first chapters alone. Read it!!! If you know me in person then I would even lend you one of my three copies of it, and people know what I'm like when it comes to lending my books...

If you've read A Little Princess, by France's Hodgson Burnett, there is probably a couple of famous quotes which spring to mind. I do love the well known ones about being a princess even in rags, and especially the one about suppressing anger in the face of your enemies. The thing with this book, and with the main character Sara, is that if her personality was applied to anyone else I would find her completely and utterly insufferable. She is the epitome of morally good and makes you feel awful about every life decision you've ever made and yet Burnett still manages to make you adore her. Perhaps it's in the way she is so young and innocent yet more aware than anyone else featured, but she is really quite likeable. At one point in her little attic she tells her friend that "Everything's a story. You are a story--I am a story." This speaks so many volumes, especially in the book where little Sara clings for her dear life to the art of storytelling in order to survive all the hardships she is subjected to. But beyond that, in reality, she is very correct. Whether you take it from a parallel dimension type realm and make it more eccentric, or just from a sweet, romanticised view of the lives of people around us, the quote is really beautiful. I wish I was saying such profound statements from a tiny attic aged 8.

Sara's insight leads me on to quite a juxtaposed one that came from Briony, one of three narrators featured in Ian McEwan's Atonement. It's quite a pivotal moment in the novel but out of context it won't spoil too much. When I first read this part I had to actually mark my page and contemplate exactly what Briony was facing at that moment, because it was a thought I had ruminated on other occasions previously. She asks herself as a fourteen year old: (I think? Roughly around that age...) "Was everyone else really as alive as she was?...If the answer was yes, then the world, the social world, was unbearably complicated, with two billion voices, and everyone's thoughts striving in equal importance and everyone's claim on life as intense, and everyone thinking they were unique, when no one was." I have seen people analyse this and suggest that it is here Briony matures, when realising she is not the centre of the universe and all does not revolve around her. But I didn't see it like that at all. I actually identified with it a lot and it is not a childish thought to wonder how there is enough space for everyone to think and live and just be. I don't think Briony was being immature and realising that she is not God's gift sent from Heaven. I think that she is grasping at intensely overwhelming emotions and struggling to understand how this all-consuming, encompassing feeling could possibly be applied to billions of people when she herself feels suffocated by it. I adored Atonement when I finally forced myself to devote time to reading it, which was bazaar considering how irritated I gradually became by every single character in the book. With at least the three main narrators there were times when I shouted out loud to the pages trying to talk sense into them. I honestly threw the book at one point in a soliloquy of Robbie's. Generally, I loved how it all played out and how cleverly the story was told. McEwan has a wonderful way with worlds that I doubt I will ever tire of.

The fourth quote I'd like to mention comes from a book that I only finished a couple of days ago, but am totally besotted with. It would be impossible to sum it up in sentences and I'd never be able to do the book justice but I'd recommend it to absolutely everybody any day of the week. It was totally captivating from start to finish and I refused to let it out of my sight until I had finished. The quote itself reads: "If there are some things inside us too tiny to see, might there be things outside us too big to see?" Like, what? Wow? If you consider it, just sit and think about what is trying to be conveyed without the context of the quote, it's saying a lot. What I love so much is that it probably means so many different things to different people, and if I were the type of person to get quotes or lyrics tattooed on myself you can bet this would be in block capitals on my forehead. I feel like this blog post is getting very lengthy and it's taken me a solid week to compose, so I'll show just one more quote I love, and probably do a part two of this when I run out of ideas again. (Expect it next week.)

So finally, I have to include at least one young adult book. For all the stigma associated with them, some are executed brilliantly and those with true individuality are some of the most captivating books I own. I have two YA books which I would rave about for hours, but I do not think individual quotes can reflect everything else which is inside them. Instead, I'll go for the superficiality of a very "Tumblr" quote from All The Bright Places by Jennifer Nirven. This book was absolutely lovely to read and touching from front cover to back. There are two quotes within this book that caught my attention and instead of giving my thoughts, I'm just going to let them run wild with you. The book is really rather wonderful. Without further ado (how cliche), here they are:
"You are all the colors in one, at full brightness."
"We are all alone, trapped in these bodies and our own minds, and whatever company we have in this life is only fleeting and superficial."

There! 5 books which I adore and several quotes which I'll always love from them. I could do this post another seven hundred times and fill it to the brim with books and quotes galore, but for the sake of mine and your sanity, that's all. I'm really, painfully stuck for inspiration on what to write which is rather tragic considering I'm obliged to keep this up for six whole months. (Hint hint, inspire me with some suggestions. Thanks.)

PS: Sorry to disappoint. This isn't a political rant, however I have a whole string of those stored in my cramped little head ready to whip out next time someone provokes them, so... Just hold your horses.

EDIT 21/10: Since writing this I think that it came across a lot harsher than I intended. Shockingly, I really do enjoy school. Don't hold me to this, it was a spur of the moment anger thing and I don't believe all of these things, especially not to the extent I gave the impression of.

It seems a bit ridiculous that out of the select few things I have chosen to post, the vast majority have been about education. (So obviously this is going to be too.) I feel it's kind of necessary to add that this is by no means an outright attack on my own school - which of course it's going to appear, as my only experience of the school system. But at the same time, I'm not stupid enough to believe that every other school in the country isn't run under a similar, if not identical, regime. With that said my views on the British school system won't apply to everyone and it is honestly just how I feel at the time of writing (usually in stupid hours of the morning.) It feels wrong, too, that my sole purpose of writing this is because of school/D of E and that my assessor is one of my own English teachers who I value really quite highly. At some point I'll consider writing what I actually enjoy in terms of school, which is the fundamental concept of learning. (That's for another day, I have grievances to alleviate.)

Every Monday I help with the local Rainbows unit spending an hour and fifteen minutes entertaining girls from about age 4 to 7. Out of every adjective going that could be applied to them specifically I'd have to go for the lexical field of "energetic". It's a pleasure, of course, and always significantly uplifting, but consistently a shock when you consider the contrast between their endless excitement and my own somewhat vacant motivation. To hear from one of the leaders of the group, who doubles as mum to two of the loveliest girls, that she wants to homeschool her children, is hard hitting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homeschooling, that isn't my point in the slightest. It's that she feels already, with a daughter who has been in Reception for one month and another who had just started Year 2, that they're being limited. She knows that their blossoming creativity and passion might get crushed and moulded and twisted until they're well and properly prepared for working life.

My issue with the education system (today) is that it often leaves very little room for individuality. You could be the most animated, vehement, zealous person when it comes to your favourite subject and love it wholeheartedly but that really isn't all that relevant. Yes, it might drive you to study hard for it and focus all your attention on doing well in it but your "cleverness" is eventually just determined by how well you can manipulate a question to fill criterium. Exam boards limit the topics you study and so often times you have to go out of your own way to educate yourself on what it is that you're interested in. It's just about the testing. And I am sure that a lot of people would love to beg to differ. It's a love for the subject that drives us to excel, we are only limited by exams and curriculum if we adhere to that belief. Honestly, I do agree in many cases and would love to do so wholeheartedly.

I have veered off the point to a ridiculous extent when all I really came to say was how sad it must feel believing that your child is going to have to change themselves and restrain their blossoming creativity for the sake of getting a handful of good grades which are considered worthwhile.

I can't help but feel like the value of an occupation in each society dictates the weight it holds in our education. We have to be taught the Sciences and Maths and English but subjects like Art and Drama are optional. How "academic" you are is defined by how well you do in predetermined classes. Your own worth as a future component of the workforce is presented to you on a sheet, or through an email, in the form of ten or so letters. And what do they really mean? Besides dictating your future. Do As across the board equate to cleverness? Or realistically, in a lot of cases, does it just mean you worked out the way things have to work, worked out that you need to memorise the facts and commit to memory what the mark scheme requires you to write? Is that selling out to the system? A letter grade doesn't necessarily show ability to learn, rather obedience. Everyone is born with the ability to learn, there isn't a graduating scale of how well you can do it. Perhaps it's even showing your ability to conform. (I know this doesn't apply to all subjects which is one of the reasons I love English and Sociology so much.)

The worst part of all of this when it's consuming me at ungodly hours of night is how helpless I feel. Even if I did have a real, practical solution that solved every problem which arises from our current state, and combined the reasons we have schooling like we do now, it's just not going to be enforced. The process would be lengthy and far too controversial to be considered as a genuine proposal. Really, I'm content with complying if that's what has to be done to get to a position where I can inspire social change, or even just be content doing whatever it is that I love. I just wish there was more honesty in modern education, admittance that what you have to do is adapt to an exam board to succeed.

It feels less like learning everything that the world has to offer and a lot more like being programmed to live inside accepted roles.

As time passes I'm regretting more and more putting blogging as my DofE skill. Not because I have a lack of things to talk about, anyone that has had any contact with my in any way whatsoever will understand that could never be the case. But it's very hard to translate verbal language into coherent sentences that enforce my point under the pressures of the finality of publishing content online. I could easily rant for six or seven lengthy posts about how the connotations of western feminism shouldn't hinder your want to identity as an intersectional feminist, how reverse racism cannot and does not exist in this modern context, I could even discuss why and how I joined the Labour Party but I don't think that I could capture the constant reel of thoughts in my head well enough to do them justice.

If necessary I could talk for hours and hours on end about my favourite novels, about book quotes or about musical theatre if only as a personal outlet for what is always present in a corner of my mind somewhere. Really, this isn't me asking anyone for ideas or inspiration or even for consent because, as you may have a realised, this is my blog and I'll do with it what I choose to do. But within that I have to dedicate an hour of my time to it per week starting from the 9th October so take this as a partial warning to expect the bare minimum and please, please do not hold me to anything I state here.

Which leads me on nicely to a train of thought that's been tugging at my brain recently; the concept that your beliefs and opinions are rigid, cemented and unchanging. Or rather, you are not entitled to backtrack and have a different approach to a situation than say, a month ago. For so many people, this is their strongest argument against giving 16 year olds the vote. Personally I still have no idea where I stand on this issue yet, but I do know that I find it easier to debate with people who are against such a problem. Readdressing the point, it's completely obvious that opinions are susceptible to change. Our opinions are products of the context in which we live our lives, it's the setting and environment and people that influence our opinions. And these things change! Everything around you changes, so of course your opinions, which are guided by your life's context, are going to adjust and change accordingly to such a context. Of course, under 18s are probably going to change their minds a lot more, but how in any shape or form does this mean they are unworthy of voting?

I could easily argue against the 16/17 year old vote, don't get me wrong. But I don't agree with using the point above as a reason for them not to have it.

So, this kind of turned into a sneak preview of a tiny, irrelevant corner of my head right now which is... good. I don't really know how to finish this which my train of thought is still running unfailingly. I hope you have a lovely week.

Charlotte

So I was thinking the other day, having been asked to do an assembly on a topic of my choosing, about the awareness spread concerning gender and sexuality within school curriculum. This provoked me to consider how much exposure my school personally has allowed for either of these topics and I realised that, in my recollection, we have never once been introduced to even the mere concept of gender or sexuality identity. As such it is really quite understandable why ignorance surrounding the subjects exists - how can young people be expected to crush social prejudice when the reason for it is completely foreign! The most socially aware people I have come across have had to take it upon themselves to educate themselves through platforms such as social media which, yes, does demonstrate a keen eagerness to learn in order to be more accepting. However, they shouldn't have to be going out of their way to teach themselves about one of the most important and key elements of our own personal identities.

I was curious to know whether it was my school specifically that had not acknowledged this prominent social issue, or whether the National Curriculum in place in the UK had left it out entirely instead. Within the NC I discovered a detailed document outlining what should be included within sex and relationship education at secondary level. It stated:

Pupils need also to be given accurate information and helped to develop skills to enable them to understand difference and respect themselves and others and for the purpose also of preventing and removing prejudice. Secondary pupils should learn to understand human sexuality [...]

And there it was. Right there in a document straight off the government website. Now, I'm not sure if this policy has now been enforced for the years below mine, or if we did have a PSCHE lesson about removing prejudice through understanding human sexuality but there, in fact, lies my point. Even if such a lesson has been taught to my peers and myself it evidently was not memorable! Approaching the concept of both gender and sexuality identity isn't something you can cover in an hour, nor can people understand in a quickly brushed over lesson. It is something people are still grasping today, still learning and still only just becoming more widely accepted. It really, really worries me that if just my year group, over 300 young people are walking round with no idea that there is a difference between gender and sex, that there are so many more identities that male and female, that you don't have to apply a label to yourself, that you aren't signing a life long contract and you can change it as you personally change, that only you choose what you identify as, that there exists a spectrum of sexuality and your romantic and sexual preferences can be different, that bisexual doesn't just mean "they can't make up their mind" and so, so much more. And importantly, that whatever you choose to identify as is more than ok. I am the strongest and firmest believer that education is the key to breaking social barriers, to diminishing prejudice, that the tool of learning must be utilised and harnessed for its power, but it just isn't. Which is a shame, really, when adolescents are in a prime period of socialisation where any root causes of gender and sexuality based discrimination could be completely eradicated. Instead we are continually being raised with a huge gap in our social learning.

When I asked if I could do the assembly on gender to Year Seven I got told that they were probably too young to understand it. This is a new year group consisting of 10/11 year olds. I do agree, to an extent. But only because it's never been introduced to them before when it should've been. It's likely they know nothing about the two topics unless their parents have made direct means to expose them to it. We should be encouraging children to know that they can choose and be whatever they want to and that it does not have to be what they were labelled as when they were born. It is all very well wishing and hoping for that accepting society but it's never going to happen when a key institution and agent of social control refuses to spread awareness.

I would like to address this situation in any way I can but I don't quite know how. While I think it's a little vague I am glad to know that the concept of sexuality is in the National Curriculum and hopefully being taught in some schools around the country. As far as I'm aware, gender isn't featured at all (although do correct me if I'm wrong. I am only considering the concepts in the mandatory curriculum and not in option based subjects). Obviously the ideal world would have it a staple in every schools curriculum but that takes time and as time passes there goes more and more year groups remaining unaware. I guess the only conceivable way I can see is to spread awareness ourselves by talking about it as much as possible, using the power of social media, correcting and educating the people around us and ensuring above all we respect the choices people make in their lives.

This isn't a particularly long post but considering I haven't actually posted anything since the start of the summer holidays, it's pretty good going! Since blogging is now my Duke of Edinburgh skill section I guess this will need to be a lot more of a frequent thing. (No way could I cope with a routine schedule but I owe an hour a week to writing for this so expect some pretty boring, time filling rambles in the very near future.)

- Charlotte

The thing with the education system is that your fate is pretty much decided by the age of 6. Even before that, academic achievement is limited by predetermined factors like your class, gender and ethnicity. Take class, for example. Arguably, your standard comprehensive state schools uphold very middle class values through the standards by which the school is run and the staff that are hired to teach. This is a given as the teachers, particularly at secondary school level, are required to have a specialism in their subject and have achieved some degree of further education, an opportunity which on average mainly middle class families push their children to go through. Marketisation in education has led to league tables and choice in schooling which, in consequence, increases the standards of schools and again reinforces very MC/UC values.

So how does that limit anyone? Well, working class families enforce different norms in socialisation to middle and upper class families. Behaviour and language differ quite extortionately and in comparison, some working class children would even be considered culturally deprived and have not acquired cultural capital with ease. When they reach school age and progress through the system they will likely struggle to conform to the rules and normality of the school having been brought up on different values. Not only will they have to learn to adapt when in school, giving their middle class peers a head start, they could also face material deprivation which has the potential to limit their success due to lacking commonplace materials of that period of time. In short, middle class students have a greater likelihood of falling behind in school as they have to learn a new set of values which may contradict the ones upon which they were raised. This also increases their chances of turning to deviant sub-cultures and rejecting the education system as whole, having been branded a failure after struggling to conform to the school's rules.

Another fact of our system is the hidden curriculum. From a very Marxist perspective, this would entail the bourgeoisie inflicting a series of lessons (that are not formally taught) upon the proletariat. Examples of such lessons are punctuality, conforming to rules, accepting hierarchy, dress code and routine. This hidden curriculum represents society's values and prepares students for their role in society later in life. Here, in the hidden curriculum, is also where gender role allocation is sparked. Teachers often act differently towards genders and treat them accordingly, expecting different behaviour and success from each. This means that they learn different things from school and take different academic routes as a result. Where girls are already "supposed" to be gentle and timid as enforced by primary socialisation (a good example is young girls' birthday cards), the hidden curriculum reiterates this. The correct behaviour for females is strengthened here and gendered regimes push this further: girls play netball and boys play rugby, seating plans of girl, boy, girl, boy and uniform consistently reinforces gender roles. How can issuing gender roles be detrimental? In many occupations it is evident how under-represented both genders are. In Forbes top ten richest people list, only two of the ten are women. This is not because men are better and therefore get more money, but because women are not provided with the same opportunities as men: this is a concept which begins as early on as school! Gender roles limit us as human beings and are oppressive towards all genders. Ethnic minorities also have a disadvantage. In Britain, we have a very ethno-centric curriculum and any children who have moved from their home country at some point in their life, who live under a different culture's values will be already behind before they begin school.

That is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of painfully obvious flaws in our schools. You don't have to look hard to know that a heavy majority of a secondary school pupils hate every second of being there - from experience I know that a shockingly large proportion of secondary school students are driven to tears by the very prospect of going to school. Stress at school was found to be the main cause of depression among young people in 2013 - why? Is that really what was intended when the structure of our system was created? Education and learning are both very beautiful things, understanding a text and solving a problem created out of numbers is both satisfying and a remarkable concept. Something needs to change. We should not be continuing to create a space which teenagers passionately hate and resent for their whole lives - school should be at the very least an escape from home, where so many young people have disgusting circumstances and pressure already. They should enjoy going to school! As much as I could sit here and continue to rip into our current system, the problem is that there is no easy solution. Even if a good one existed, enforcing it would be a huge issue in that it would need to be trailed and tested, but how can you do this ethically? It is not fair to disrupt a child's education, however much they may dislike it, to experiment with a new structure. And that is assuming there is a good solution; while the stress of exams is genuinely detrimental to the mental health and stability of GCSE and A level students, how else can you test them? With the national curriculum, there is so much being missed out that we will never learn, that has already been decided for us before we are even born! But everyone should have the same fundamental knowledge provided to them, otherwise some may have an advantage over others. Assessing the education system in Britian is difficult. We have a workforce and evidently we have produced astounding scholars, but is that any consolation when we are taught so little beyond academia, and when such a huge level of anxiety is invoked by school environments?

Success is defined by "the accomplishment of an aim or purpose." Recently, at my own secondary school we were given our termly report and upon numerous occasions throughout the day I heard people proclaim that they "wished they were clever!" or that they were "dumb." All this report consisted of was a piece of paper with letters from A onwards placed next to a subject heading. Based solely on this, a large number of teenagers subjected themselves to cruel self-deprecation and made comparisons between their peers which only furthered their shame. We have been taught to believe that you are only clever if you manage to succeed in school, and although it is all very well to explain that being "smart" is not confined to the classroom, how can anyone be expected to believe this of themselves when so much of our futures depend on how we excel between classroom walls? It is not much a matter of being gifted, and instead of possessing the ability to memorise and recite facts, to comprehend the education system and manipulate it to fill the criteria of each exam board.

Whilst I have presented only a fraction of the flaws that preside in the education system, I bring no solution. Realistically, is there an answer? There are so many other factors which play a part in students' education, beyond their own capacity to learn. The only way to progress is to acknowledge these factors and make a change, because it is sickeningly wrong to know how many teenagers despise attending school when learning is such an incredible thing. Oscar Wilde made the very significant point that "nothing worth knowing can be taught."

I want to know what you think: Are/were you happy at school? Do you agree or disagree with anything I have said? And what do you think is good about our system? As, although this has been soaked in pessimism and negativity, it is not all bad. Leave a comment with your own thoughts on this.

Humans are the epitome of intriguing. Words themselves were created by humans (and continue to be created to this day), are spoken by humans and used by humans to hurt or to cherish, to hold the smallest and most irrelevant of conversations or to settle life-threatening disputes. Words in one area take the definition of words in another. Language barriers are formed by us and limit the level to which we can converse with others on a different continent or behind a different border which again, is a creation of mankind. So many things are products of our own creation: technology, reproduction, history itself, and yet words seem the most unfathomably wonderful of all. They quite literally push people to death, they provoke the deepest and darkest of emotion, and give me - right now - the capability to express myself through different sequences of the same 26 letters over and over again. Hieroglyphs and symbols are given sounds and a movement of the muscles in the mouth which are then grouped together to make words. And we give these words power over us, there are deep connotations of many and we allow such things to guide us as a society. There is taboo around "swear words" that we formed ourselves, gave meaning to ourselves, and forbade ourselves. We could explore why, why prohibited words exist and for what purpose did we create them. Or, we could accept it and bask in the simplicity that is found in forming a string of letters that can transmit and convey all manner of message and meaning. From simple sentences we have found knowledge, freedom, and opinion.

Yet opinion is a funny thing. It is a judgement about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge (according to the Oxford Dictionary). The oddest part of all is how fundamental opinions are in the human race, how we would simply lack the ability to function without opinions. If we did not make judgement, we would not make a decision on even the smallest things, and although we would continue to exist biologically, what would be the point?

And despite that a view on something is a necessity in living, it still drives wedges between some and creates bonds between others. It starts wars, solves them, destroys people and creates others. Little opinions, beginning as a tiny seed inside of us are provoked and taunted by our surroundings and fed by society and culture. Even claiming to "not have an opinion" is, in itself, an opinion by definition. You have made the judgement that the matter at hand is unworthy of your time and that you are more concerned with forming your opinions of other things.

And opinions contrast with fact. The antithetical opposite to opinion is fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true. So while an opinion is just a judgement, it is antonymous with a proven statement. Facts define us but opinions make us more than just an autonomous collection of limbs and muscles and organs. This thing, this collection of soon to be posts in a so-called blog, is really just opinions. My little opinions that may not have any impact on you whatsoever, but to me, are deep rooted beliefs that I will advocate to the grave and will always fight for. My opinion is to me as important as yours is to you, and while we may disagree within our opinions, all it is is a judgement, a conclusion based on the lives we have lead to date. In each others positions, it is probable that my opinion would be yours and visa versa. Additionally, remember that opinions aren't a solidified thing. They are fluid and susceptible to change, if you let them.

As people, we mould each other and thus mould each others' opinions - an incredible fact that should not fall prey to ignorance. If you will listen to what I have to say, I will pay you the same respect.

Would you say you are "opinionated"? Would you not agree that everybody is opinionated, and those who are labelled as such simply express their views with more passion and more frequently than others? Let me know.

- Charlotte

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Sexualities

The R****** Crisis

Curing a Reading Slump

Books I Want To Read Before I Turn 18!

A Handful of Quotes (+ my first rant-free post!)

(Another) Rant?

Notes To Self + A Small Train of Thought

What We're Not Being Taught

The Flaws of the Education System

Words: A Creation of Humanity