Who and what do we take selfies for?

What’s really in a selfie?

 

The ascent of image-centric social media platforms such as Instagram have given rise to a fascinating phenomenon: selfie culture. The social and cultural ramifications of this are, as yet, unclear. Are we witnessing the dawn of a revolutionary new age in which women can openly proclaim their confidence and self love to the world? Or is this simply a socially acceptable manifestation of hyper vanity? Worse yet, does it prove that we are more image conscious and approval-hungry then ever? 

 The answers may lie in the question: who are we really taking these selfies for?

 

Are Selfies Feminist?

Instagram as a platform for self expression and representation

@carolinaronquilloluna via #thisiswhatafeministlookslike

Instagram can be a platform for proclaiming confidence in yourself and taking ownership of your own image. The rise of social media has handed a mic to the people in a way that has never before been seen. In years gone by you would have needed a printing press, or at very least someone else’s approval to publicise an image or your opinion. Now everyone with an internet connection can be both the artist and the muse, you hold the camera but you’re also the model and, surely, that is empowering. This ability to broadcast our thoughts and opinions, and yes, images of ourselves on our own terms could potentially be revolutionary in terms of self expression and representation.

As Emma Bracy points out in her article for Man Repeller, loving yourself  – including the way you look – in a world that insists on women’s self-depreciation can be a defiant act of rebellion. This is of particular importance for marginalised people, bodies of colour, queer bodies. Using selfies to represent our own image could have a hand in the diversification of what is considered beautiful, it can create a sense of community, of strength in numbers, of mutual inspiration. In a related article for Man Repeller, Bracy delves deeper into the meaning of selfies, exploring the selfie and Instagram as an opportunity to “proclaim self-love in public spheres”. It’s pointed out that prior to the selfie movement, women were encouraged to be overly modest and make a show of disparaging themselves, lest they look too confident. The prevailing ideal of women as being beautiful but inexplicably low in self-esteem is demonstrated in the sentiments of popular culture, in songs like One Direction’s ‘What Makes You Beautiful.’ 

Vanity by Frank Cadogan Cowper, 1907

This annoying double standard has often been alluded to in regard to women recognising and acknowledging their own beauty. An oft-quoted excerpt from John Berger’s Ways of Seeing comes to mind,

“You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting ‘Vanity,’ thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure.”

 

Patriarchal norms dictate that a woman’s acknowledgment of her own beauty is intimidating, unattractive or repellent. Then it stands to reason: when we post a selfie, we are presenting a stiff middle finger to that familiar belittling echo in our minds that tells us we shouldn’t like the way we look.

@winnieharlow owning her own self image

Glamour, citing a recent study from the University of Toronto, claim that regularly taking selfies can make the participant feel more attractive and well-liked that individuals who don’t take selfies. The habit, though often considered vain, can actually contribute to building a healthy level of self esteem. Although, it is unclear whether the actual act of selfie-taking is the root cause of the increased self confidence. It could be that people who already feel confident (and like the way they look) are simply more likely to take selfies in the first place. For people who already see themselves in a favourable light, posting selfies and receiving the gratification of likes and compliments fortifies that positive self image. Which, in turn, creates a positive cycle that contributes to a healthy self esteem.

Some psychologists have even suggested selfie taking could be more significant than simply learning to admire yourself, it could also be an act of self exploration. Self portraits have been a medium through which artists can explore and express themselves, using their own image as art. For instance, Frida Kahlo’s most celebrated paintings primarily deal with her own image which she uses to express the most significant aspects of her being and experiences, her injuries, her ethnic identity her politics. Of course your standard duck-face, peace-sign selfie isn’t very comparable to this, but it is possible to use selfies as a form of self expression and many people actually do. Being the subject of our own art is no new thing. Self portraits have existed in various forms for centuries, even millennia. Selfies could be the self portrait of the digital age.

Self portrait by Vincent Van Gogh, 1889

In any case, selfie culture could provide women with an opportunity to show public support for other women. Gassing (boosting another’s ego, in this case posting compliments on others’ pictures) on social media could actually be a very real way that girls publicly support one another and tackle traditional mentalities about female competitiveness particularly in regard to looks. Gassing on social media may not seem like much but it is actually a mutually rewarding experience. It promotes positive emotions and a sense of camaraderie and togetherness, often with people you don’t even know.

 

But what about when we’re not being supportive?

 

As we all know, we don’t live in a perfect world. It’s not all girl power and gassing and mutual support. We might actually find ourselves rolling our eyes at others’ selfies rather than leaping to compliment them and inflate their self-esteem. Studies have shown that while we generally have a positive attitude towards our own selfies, we often view other people’s selfies in a decidedly more negative way. This phenomenon has been observed in both men and women. At the heart of this “selfie paradox” is selfie perception.

Participants in the aforementioned study were consistently shown to perceive their own selfies as ironic and authentic, while they almost always – about 90% of the time – considered others’ selfies superficial, self-presentational and narcissistic. (Interestingly, participants also regularly assumed that others were having more fun than they were while taking selfies.)

@kimkardashian

This paradox is further explained by a simple psychological theory dating back to the early 1970s, as Leah Fessler illustrates in an article for Quartz: “the self-serving bias, an ego-based attribution. ‘We naturally try to explain our behavior in terms that flatter us and put us in a good light,’ says Sarah Diefenbach of Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich. ‘Self-presentational motivations may be associated with narcissism and regarded as less reputable, and therefore attributed to others rather than to oneself. For oneself, one prefers relations to be more reputable character traits such as self-irony or authenticity.'”

Indeed, this apparent double standard when it comes to selfies may also be partially responsible for the social phenomenon known as the “hate-follow.” That is the somewhat strange (but quite common) act of following someone whose online presence irritates you. Hate-following does the exact opposite of gassing, it contributes to a culture of shaming and breaking-down other people’s self esteem. This is certainly not doing feminism, ourselves or others any good.

And what about when we don’t get the approval that we

are craving from posting a selfie?

 

The negative impact that social media often has on our self esteem has been well documented. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Dr. Suzana Flores, author of Facehooked: How Facebook Affects our Emotions, Relationships and Lives, explains “when someone interacts over social media for prolonged periods of time, inevitably they feel compelled to continue to check for updates. I call this the “Slot Machine Effect” in that when we receive a like or a comment to a post, or when we come across an interesting new post from someone else, we experience what psychologists refer to as intermittent reinforcement—sometimes we get “rewarded” with an interesting post, and sometimes we are not, but the rewards through external validation of our posts, cause us to remain digitally connected.”

 According to The Huffington Post, 51% of social media users report feeling more self conscious about their appearance. Flores further explains “research has also shown that Facebook users are becoming increasingly depressed from comparing themselves to their own profile. Meaning that if a person’s reality does not match the digital illusion they post on their profiles, emotionally, one may feel they are not living up to the “best” form of themselves.” Emotionally secure people don’t tend to struggle with such issues. However, a large portion of our population do suffer with at least some emotional insecurities and therefore most of us do suffer the consequences of social media’s negative effects.

There is a constant sense of self comparison on social media. Negative self comparison with others is made easy by social media’s format. Your popularity and the popularity of others, our public approval rating, is quantifiable in the number of likes we have. If a person posts a selfie and gets only a handful of likes, or no likes at all, it could be devastating to their self esteem. Especially when contextualised against instagram models and influencers whose selfies get thousands or even millions of likes. Or even non-famous but generally popular and good-looking people with a couple of hundred likes.  The increasing tendencies of social media users to base their sense of self worth on likes and comments surely cannot be healthy or sustainable.

@kyliejenner

But the self comparison doesn’t stop there, not just in regard to selfies and the way we look, but equally in regard to “life envy.” We all get “life envy” from time to time, we start scrolling through someone else’s feed and wanting to be more like them, dress like them, go to fancy restaurants and on expensive holidays like them, be more successful like them, the list goes on. It happens to everyone. But we’re also guilty of doing it to others, setting out with the intention of making others envy us. We often find ourselves only posting selfies in which we think we look our best and in situations that make us look good, when we get a promotion, for example, or when we’re on an exotic holiday. But of course this isn’t our day-to-day reality. So what is it doing to our sense of self? Are we becoming more narcissistic? More eager to show how great and pretty and popular we are? Craving other people’s admiration and jealousy?

Are we, when all is said and done, becoming more insecure and ultimately more reliant on the approval of others? 

 

 It’s not all bad

 

There’s a glimmer of hope. Even blatant self promotion on social media can actually help us with our personal development. According to Pamela Rutledge, director of the nonprofit Media Psychology Research Center, “aspirational” selfies (those intended to present your “best self”) aren’t simply about gathering likes and garnering the approval of others. In addition to that, they also have an effective way of helping people to see a path towards behaviours and qualities they desire for themselves: “Posting high points in life increases confidence, empowerment, gratitude, and appreciation through mindfulness, and the ability to visualise desired outcomes.”

 

Final Answer: It’s Complicated.

 

Is this all in the name of self empowerment? Of feminism? Are selfies revolutionising the female/femme image? Or is this all just vanity masquerading as female empowerment? Are we simply seeking approval and acceptance? Are selfies just a socially acceptable way for us to present a curated, “best” version of ourselves, submitted for the envy and admiration of others? Or, worse still, another vehicle for the ubiquitous male gaze? 

The answer is probably a bit of all of those things. And totally dependent on circumstance and intention. Yes, selfies can be about self-empowerment but they can also make us feel a lot worse about ourselves (as can the over all effect of social media).

It seems we’ve come full circle. At the beginning I asked “who are we really taking these selfies for?” The answer to the question, then, boils down to the individual: who and what are we really taking the pictures for? And, perhaps most crucially, how does it all make you feel? If it makes you feel good, then it’s got to be good, if not – you’ve got your answer.

What do you think of selfies? Do you take them? Have

your say in the comments section below.

 

*Images are not my own. All images have been sourced from instagram and/or have been credited. No copyright infringement intended.

The problem with ‘Mary Queen of Scots’

Visually sumptuous but historically ludicrous, Josie Rourke’s attempt at a feminist re-telling of this 16th Century game of thrones ultimately falls foul of the same old tropes that plague historical storytelling.

Cards on the table: I am a historian. So perhaps it’s not quite fair for me to critique this film which is clearly not entirely based in fact. It’s hard to stay completely true to the historical material and create a film that is entertaining to a modern audience. I know that. And, as Suzanna Lipscombe has pointed out, the some of the film’s most exciting and surprising plot points: “the strange attempt by Elizabeth to marry Mary to Robert Dudley; the marriage between Mary and Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who really was a drunken bisexual, found in bed with musician David Rizzio; the spectacular assassinations,” are all true. There are even some moments of historical tenability that are remarkably under explored, Elizabeth I’s smallpox attack, for instance. But part of the problem with Mary Queen of Scots was that its inaccuracies didn’t actually make it any spicier. Mary’s Scottish accent in the film added nothing and doesn’t make much sense as she had spent most of her life in France and therefore, if anything, would have had a French accent. It could be conceded that she would have often spoken in her native Scots whilst back in Scotland, are we therefore to suspend our disbelief and pretend that they are speaking Scots? It’s hard to say.

 The more pressing historical discrepancy would have to be the meeting between Mary (Saoirse Ronan) and Elizabeth (Margot Robbie), which never actually happened. Though, the film does make an excuse for itself by stating that the meeting was secret and therefore not on the historical record. A bit of a cop out but a decent defence. I just can’t help but feel that Hollywood can do better. The Tudor (and Stuart) period is such a juicy slice of time in British history. In fact, it’s often the case that the facts are just as – if not more – interesting than the dramatisation. It’s already risqué, brimming with sex, murder and intrigue. This period can read as an old-timey, pseudo-intellectual version of a HELLO! –

What sort of wife would Queen Elizabeth be? We asked an astrologer to chart her horoscope

BREAKING: King Henry sends fifth wife to the chopping block

Revealed: did Queen Mary REALLY kill her own husband?

Their aptitude for scandal almost makes it too easy. But just because you can turn the Tudors and Stuarts into caricatures resembling C-list celebrities in tacky magazines doesn’t mean you should. And that’s where Mary Queen of Scots starts to go wrong. The accent and the fictional meeting are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the problematic representation of history here. Rourke’s adaptation is not the enlightened intellectual thriller that it claims to be. Rather, it becomes a gaudy tale of female rivalry more akin to a soap opera than a revisionist re-telling of a nuanced and intricate chapter in history.

BOW TO NO ONE boom the film’s promotional posters and yet there is no such rebellion, there is no such departure from your run of the mill bodice-ripper. We’ve seen a strong Elizabeth before, we’ve seen a strong Mary before. Most notably in Cate Blanchett’s performance as the former in Elizabeth (1998) and in Katherine Hepburn’s portrayal of the latter in Mary of Scotland (1936). At least since the 30’s we’ve seen the feminist agenda played out via a fiery, independent Queen Mary asserting her authority over her chauvinist inferiors: “I’m going to live my own life, do as I say!” Less surprising was the similarly proud outburst in the 90’s in Elizabeth, “I will have one mistress here! And no master!” – an actual quote from the real Elizabeth I. Clearly, attention to the proto-feminist potential of both queens is no new thing. So what is this 2018 version actually bringing to the table?

There is a notable – somewhat successful – attempt to interrogate the sexist limitations that were consistently pushed on both women. Ronan and Robbie each do a good job of conveying the frustrations born of being a 16th century political dichotomy: monarch and woman. The audience is often confronted with the historical reality that Tudor men did not much care for bowing to a woman’s will, queen or not. As Lord Randolph (Adrian Lester) illustrates in a hushed aside: “How did the world come to this? Wise men servicing the whims of women?” This concept is furthered, brilliantly, by David Tenant’s venom-spitting fanatical John Knox who declares: “We have a scourge upon our land. Tis a woman with a crown,” and later leading his congregation in Scotland in a chant, denouncing their queen as a “whore.”

The overriding tragedy in Mary Queen of Scots is that Elizabeth cannot hold out against her scores of male advisers who seem hellbent on poisoning her mind against her cousin and fellow queen. Mary and Elizabeth write letters to each other throughout the film, with Mary insisting that they “rule side by side in harmony. Not through a treaty drafted by men lesser than ourselves.” Elizabeth responds in like: “let our nations cherish each other, as we would. Two kingdoms united.” And later Mary implores Elizabeth, “Do not play into their hands…I know your heart has more within it than the men who counsel you.” It is clear that the film advocates for a united front, presenting a heartfelt plea for female unity, very much in keeping with the Me Too age. This appeal to modern feminism and 21st century sensibilities is surely one of the film’s gifts.

In their final showdown, however, Elizabeth tells Mary “your gifts will be your downfall.” This heavy foreshadowing of Mary’s fate becomes an unfortunate metaphor for the film’s feminist allegory. For all the initial pleasantries and comradeship between the two queens, the message ultimately falls flat. Not just because Elizabeth eventually betrays their bond of female loyalty, more due to the film’s unoriginal focus on a personal competition between them. Far from presenting an intelligent biopic worthy of history’s most formidable queens, it belittles their complex relationship to a petty rivalry over “who’s prettier? Who’s married? Who has a baby? Who’s a better woman?” Which must ultimately leave us with the question: can we not do better than this? This reductionist, constantly replayed obsession with personal enmity? There is no credible historical record of this supposed interpersonal bitterness. Therefore there is no basis for Mary Queen of Scots to boil down “the arcane details of centuries-old diplomacy to a personal beef between two massive celebrities.” Can we please move past this fictitious 16th century catfight?

True, both queens are presented as talented and intelligent, but much of that goes to waste. The film is too invested in Mary’s romantic drama, but its most unforgivable crime is its disservice to Elizabeth. It reduces one of the most consequential women in English history to a snivelling mess with little to do other than survive a nasty bout of smallpox, run hysterically into Dudley’s arms and wonder what she’d look like pregnant. Robbie, a very capable actor by all accounts, is not handed a version of Elizabeth that she can get her teeth into. That said, Robbie brings a humanity and sense of human vulnerability to the role. And there is an interesting dimension in which she can explore the difficulties Elizabeth faced, being a non-traditional queen- unlike Mary she is unmarried and childless (and constantly berated by her advisers for it). But the film implies that Elizabeth refuses to marry in part due to a fear of being discovered barren and/or feeling more like a man than a woman. There isn’t much historical evidence to back either of these ideas, save for Bram Stroker’s bizarre theory that Elizabeth was in fact a man. Had the equally interesting (in my humble opinion) historical reality been explored, that being that Elizabeth used her eligible status to her political advantage, her character would have been much stronger and more in keeping with the film’s feminist overtones.

Mary Queen of Scots’ insistence on the all-encompassing benevolence of the titular character is a big part of the problem. It is understandable that Rourke and writer Beau Willimon wished to present a multi-dimensional, sympathetic version of Mary as opposed to the one-note villain she has previously been portrayed as. Mary Stuart was seemingly very worthy of praise for a number of reasons. It is true, for example, that Mary (a Catholic) was happy to let her subjects “live as they list“, worshipping as they saw fit. She seems to have been cosmopolitan and notably tolerant for the standards of her time. But in Mary Queen of Scots her understanding nature and generosity apparently know no bounds. She tells David Rizzio (Ismael Cruz-Cordova) her gay and gender-nonconforming secretary/best friend when he expresses his comfort in wearing women’s clothing “Be whomever you wish with us.” An unlikely sentiment for a 16th century Catholic queen but not absolutely impossible. When Rizzio betrays her by sleeping with her new husband – on their wedding night, no less – she’s as serene as the Virgin Mother, immediately forgives and consoles him, “You have not betrayed your nature.” Now, that pushes past the point of credulity.

More importantly, from a historical perspective, the film never acknowledges the very real possibility that Mary did plot to assassinate Elizabeth. The root cause of the divide between Mary and Elizabeth is never adequately addressed in the film; like so many political and military clashes at the time, it was religious rather than personal in nature. Mary, a Catholic with a claim to the English throne was favoured by Catholics across Europe who aimed to depose Elizabeth. The English queen’s Protestant ministers on the other hand, feared and distrusted Mary due to her being a legitimate threat. This reality may have trumped any supposed bond they had.

It’s unlikely that either wanted the other dead from the get-go but circumstance and personal preservation seemed to push them both into a position they would rather not have been in. As history has taught us time and time again, queens rarely have the same choices women do. In their attempts to keep Mary from playing the villain, Rourke and Willimon have created not only a martyr but a totally unbelievable feminist superhero, bereft of the failings and complexities of human nature.

Mary could have come across as a much stronger, not to mention more believable and interesting, character if her moral ambiguity were explored. In the latter period of her life, a time marked by imprisonment (and a likely growing resentment for the cousin who put her there), she simply appears as a victim of Elizabeth’s mistrust. The idea that that mistrust may have been justified never comes into the picture. Bear in mind, Mary was a queen in her own right who, as is pointed out in the film, believed herself to be Elizabeth’s superior and the rightful heir to the English throne. Surely, then, she could not simply submit and allow herself to be humiliated and imprisoned by her so-called inferior when freedom and dominion over Scotland and England were within her grasp? Would an audience really blame her for attempting to reassert her position as queen? Evidently, it doesn’t matter. Rourke and Willimon aren’t so interested in the political or religious realities of Mary’s world as they are in the supposed gender-based conflicts of her life.

There is much standing between what the film wants to be and what it actually is. It tries so hard to score woke points with its feminist overture, LGBT characters and marked inclusion of actors of colour. It does succeed in bringing traditionally overlooked groups into the foreground. But ultimately it fails on both counts to deliver on an exploration of any of the historical realities facing these marginalised groups, in regard to both gender and race.

The decision to cast people of colour in roles as courtiers in 16th Century England and Scotland in Mary Queen of Scots was largely praised. But still, predictably, attracted criticism from some historical purists and – let’s face it – white supremacists. Rourke’s decision was an understandable one, she made it clear that colourblind casting a period drama was important to her, due to her feeling that black and other people of colour being left out of such portrayals and films was an injustice: “I was really clear, I would not direct an all-white period drama. Adrian, who plays, Lord Randolph, grew up 40 miles from the birthplace of William Shakespeare; he is one of our eminent Shakespearean actors. I needed to cast an ambassador who could move between the two courts and help this make sense. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t cast him.”

As Trey Williams has pointed out for the TheWrap “There were people of colour in England during that time. According to the UK national archives, Elizabeth would have employed black servants and musicians, and even had a black chambermaid, though seeing a person of color as high up as Lord Randolph would have been improbable. Rourke said, however, that she didn’t see any reason that these actors couldn’t play these prominent roles in Mary Queen of Scots.”

Though there is a clear attempt on Rourke’s part to portray a more enlightened period drama, it inadvertently does almost the opposite, smoothing away the ugly realities of history. Most people were not woke in 16th century England and Scotland. By portraying colourblind courts, the historical context is ignored and the actuality of limitations and prejudices placed on people of colour, particularly black people in Europe, is not addressed. English references to black people in literature of the early modern period were brief and stereotyped, “Africans were explicitly related to apes, defined by unruly sexuality, a lack of reason, violence, and ugliness.” Scotland and the rest of Europe generally followed a similar line of thought (with some notable exceptions and deviations). It is therefore historically irresponsible and a grossly excessive use of artistic license to pretend that European royals would have given people of colour even the semblance of power or influence.

 Perhaps Mary Queen of Scots is not the right film to address these issues. But casting actors of colour in historical dramas, playing roles such as Lord Randolph and Bess of Hardwick, people who stood at the pinnacle of Elizabethan society, may not be the right way to go about it. These positions, in reality, would have been exclusively reserved for the very white social elite of European countries. Colourblind casting is hardly revolutionary- white actors have been butchering roles that were meant for people of colour for decades. It is clear that film needs more diversity and, undoubtedly, period dramas are one of the worst genres in terms of offering opportunities to actors of colour. However, rather than addressing or solving any of these issues, this inversion merely points out the gaping hole in Hollywood, begging for historical dramas that are viewed from different perspectives and set in other cultures and continents. The roaring success of films such as Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians should stand as testament to that.

Still, there is a lot to like about the film. As previously mentioned, the film gives a good overview of many historic events. The costumes and sets are stunning, as is much of the performance given by Ronan and, less so, from Robbie, who did her best with a sub-par Elizabeth. But Mary Queen of Scots’ ultimate failure should have been its primary strength. It seeks to present Mary and Elizabeth through a third wave feminist lens but it just doesn’t turn out the way it seemingly was intended.

We want our films to represent our current philosophies, we want our heroes to be who we need them to be. But all too seldom does the past fit in with the wants and needs of the present. The film rides on a fantasy of doomed sisterhood that unfortunately was probably never there, nor in a pre-feminist world could we realistically expect it to be. That is not to say that there was not some affinity and mutual understanding between Mary and Elizabeth, or that they were not both strong, intelligent female rulers among a sea of powerful men.

But in truth it seems likely that they feared and respected one another in equal measure, and their allegiances lay elsewhere than within the bonds of feminine solidarity. We cannot expect or pretend that figures of history can live up to modern standards of liberalism. In order to be fair, we must accept them and examine them within the context of their own time. In shoehorning modern ideologies into an old story you lose the essence of truth that is required of good historical fiction. Mary Queen of Scots had the potential to be a great rather than just a good film. It overpromised and underdelivered. Ultimately, this failure to successfully present an updated, truly enlightened retelling of the story makes the film’s shortcomings all the more spectacular.

 

What did you think of the film?

Have your say in the comments section below.

 

* Images are not my own. All images have been sourced from Mary Queen of Scots, 2018. Copyright: Universal Pictures and Focus Features. No copyright infringement intended

 

 

Two Faced: should there be a second referendum?

“Should there be another vote on Brexit?”

 

The question posed in the first of a new debate series: Two Faced.

In Two Faced, the two sides of the argument will be presented in a fair, unbiased way with no persuasive commentary, no foregone conclusion, no allegiance. This is where you can find the information for and against controversial debates. You are presented with the arguments, you make your mind up (or not). This idea initially came about as a reaction to the tendencies of most mainstream media to form agenda-pushing echo chambers and consequently offer their readers biased narratives and a patronising lack of personal agency. That doesn’t happen here. If you are looking for a place to consider the debate without your opinion being assumed and decided for you, you’re in the right place.

Without further ado…

 The Argument For: Why we need a People’s Vote

 

This is not a call to re-write history or undermine the decision made in 2016. It is a campaign against the series of failures that have taken place since then. It is a campaign for the the people of the UK to be granted their democratic right to vote on the final Brexit deal

 

We were lied to

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Had we known in 2016 just how costly and complex the reality of Brexit would be, perhaps the same outcome would not have been reached. Many Brits feel that much has changed since 2016, with the Brexiteers’ rampant misuse of statistics and information, not to mention the blatant lies that have now been exposed. It has now come to light that the UK will owe a £50 billion divorce bill, to be paid by 2064 simply to leave the EU. We now know that there have been many broken promises made by the likes of Nigel Farage and various Brexiteer politicians. The most notorious, of course, being the notion – splashed across the side of buses – that £350 million a week could be diverted away from the EU and towards our National Health Service. Even Dominic Cummings, the mastermind behind the bus debacle, upon seeing the realities of leaving the EU, has admitted that Brexit may be “an error.”

Tim Farron, the former Liberal Democrat leader, attacked Cummings’ discourse contending that: “Dominic Cummings has let the cat out of the bag. This is the man who slapped the £350m NHS lie on the side of the bus who is now saying leaving the EU could be a mistake…These Brexiteers have sold us a pup and lied to the public. This is why I believe the public should be given a say on the final Brexit deal.”

 

Brexit isn’t what we thought it would be

 

Westminster’s politicians have made a mess of Brexit. A mess which threatens to wreck our economy, annihilate the hopes and ambitions of young British people and, crucially, devastate our public services and our communities. The first referendum authorised the government to negotiate Britain’s departure from the EU. Yet three years later we are still far from a satisfactory or even a clear deal. Although, it has become increasingly apparent that the Government will offer us a bad deal or no deal at all.

Swathes of Leavers now regret the decision they made back in 2016. Sean O’Grady (who voted Leave in the first referendum) now makes the case for the second referendum in an article for the Independent: “I decided some time ago that Brexit wasn’t worth it, and should, with the express and informed consent of the British people in a suitable referendum, be binned. Embarrassing, but the right thing to do for the long term…So, yes, I want another vote. Even if I was still a Leaver, I hope I would accept that everyone should have a say on what is about to be done in our names. It is so momentous that it demands one. It is a decision where the practicalities and actual consequences are clearer than they were in 2016. Whatever Brexit you might have wanted, you now have one that you can vote on, for or against.”

Indeed, many people who initially voted Leave, now wish they could take it back. Many didn’t realise just how severe the consequences would be. Worse yet, countless Leavers feel that they were lied to, misled and ultimately failed by the politicians who insisted that Brexit would benefit us all.  If there is one thing that unites us all, whether we voted Leave or Remain in 2016, is that none of us wanted this. None of us voted for this utter embarrassment, this catastrophic series of blunders, this botched Brexit. If this is the only way Brexit can be, then we should all be able to agree that we are better off without it.

 

We all deserve a final say

 

Brexit will affect generation after generation of people in the UK. But it was largely decided by those who won’t suffer for the consequences in the formative years of their adulthood. Many of those who were too young to vote back in 2016 have come of age now and this issue will affect them as much, if not more, than anyone else. Young people are being left to deal with something that they largely never agreed to. An issue that affects young people’s careers, the economy, housing, healthcare and education. Therefore, it only seems fair that they should have a say in something that could have potentially disastrous repercussions for their future.

It is important to put the Government’s Brexit deal before the country in a public vote so that we can decide if the decision benefits us or not. To quote the People’s Vote campaign: “You wouldn’t sign a bill without checking it first, so why should the Brexit deal be any different?” We deserve a final say on the Brexit deal, whichever way we voted in the first referendum.

The first referendum was based on a dishonest use of information. There can be no democracy without a well-informed citizenry. After over two years of a disastrous back and forth, the public’s view may have changed dramatically, they may be more informed. A referendum, when all is said and done, serves simply to represent public opinion that the Government can take into consideration. The whole point of democracy is to represent the people’s views. Therefore, if they have changed, the Government should listen to the current will of the people, not the past. If the people’s will is indeed still to leave the European Union then surely a second referendum will tell us so?

It is of vital importance for our country’s future that we hold a People’s Vote on the final Brexit deal. Then we can see once and for all what the people of the UK really want.

 

 

The Argument Against: Why we should not have a

second vote

Those longing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for.

The 2016 vote has been regarded as a tragedy by a number of EU leaders, who have stressed that the UK will always be welcomed back should sentiments change. The UK had, after all, footed the bill for a large chunk of the EU budget and was viewed by many as a tempering counterweight to other large powers such as Germany and France. Perhaps the UK should be welcomed back- but not right now.

 

It would hurt the EU

 

If the EU’s strength and stability were the priority, there should be nothing more terrifying than the UK scrapping Brexit.

Another referendum and subsequent return to the EU would truly be a kick to the hornets’ nest. If the result of the second referendum contradicts the first, it would unleash an ideological cold war. Millions of bitter Leavers, about half the country, would feel betrayed by an already despised elite who promised them that the first vote would be the final vote and put an end to the Europe debate for good. This would further widen the chasm between richer and poorer parts of the country and unleash rage-fuelled public unrest. The UK would be resuming its EU membership in a state of turmoil and social trauma.

This could not come at a worse time for the EU. With the wave of anti-establishment anger sweeping the continent confronting liberal democracies such as France, Italy and Hungary. The raging Gilets Jaunes protests in France prove that the ghosts of our tumultuous past are far from behind us. While the EU attempts to tackle nationalism in Warsaw, populism in Rome and authoritarianism in Budapest, a UK working across Europe to oppose anything threatening its own fragile national cohesion could present the European Union “with one of its most insidious challenges yet“.

The last thing the EU needs, whilst trying to overcome these challenges, is a traumatised UK throwing its weight around, using its tangible power and diplomatic sophistication to halt the EU in its current state. The agonising standoff over Brexit may be undermining the UK’s standing in Europe, but the UK is still a force to be reckoned with. If the EU wishes to safeguard itself, it will be forced to enact some serious changes in the way it deals with migration, tackles climate change, prevents poverty, manages its security and common currency. It has to become easier to manage, easier to understand and more democratic.

 

It wouldn’t heal divisions in the UK

The shock reversal of a second referendum in favour of the Remainers would bring into being a permanently aggravated extremely large minority of close to 50 per cent of the British electorate. This bloc, feeling persecuted and oppressed, “would inevitably be served by a virulently anti-EU media and openly eurosceptic politicians, all fired up with renewed fury that Brexit had slipped from their grasp.”

A second referendum would undoubtedly give rise to anger and outrage from Leavers who would feel cheated and dismissed by the aforementioned unpopular political elite. Let’s not forget just how deep the divisions over Brexit are in the UK. Sara Hobolt of the London School of Economics is undertaking research exploring the cognitive biases brought about by the 2016 referendum, she emphasises how Brits now view politics through “Brexit-tinted lenses”. The Brexit debate has only served to cement pre-existing opinions regarding immigration and economic policy. What are the chances that a second vote would repeal or alter this as oppose to bolster it? Not very good, presumably.

A second referendum would be more supportable if it was guaranteed that there would be a clear majority this time. But unfortunately the polls tell a very different story, showing a stubborn public still steadfastly divided. Despite a marked shift towards a modest majority conceding that the vote to leave was the wrong decision, the margin is still pretty meager; not enough to prevent any uncertainty as to the outcome of another referendum.

In the event of a narrow victory for Remainers, the underlying problems that paved the way for Brexit would continue to be unsolved. In fact it would may even play into the hands of the EU’s opponents, and the establishment would be rendered liars and betrayers.

 

Democracy has to come first

A simple point but one to dwell on: if you reject one of the People’s decisions, what’s to stop you from doing it again?

The call for a second referendum is not indicative of a good faith attempt to execute a democratic decision. It conveys that when the establishment and the political elite do not get the answer they wanted, they can simply reject the result and try again. We may be wise to view the political situation in Russia as a warning.

This could become a slippery slope of politicians playing fast and loose with what democracy is.

 

 

 

 

What side of the debate do you fall on? Do you have anything to add?

Any retorts for the arguments for or against? Have your say in the

comments section below!

 

 

 

Lessons in Self Creation with Frida Kahlo

The second in the new “3 lessons in personal style” series will be Mexican artist and icon Carmen Magdalena Frida Kahlo y Calderón.

Frida Smoking, Gisèle Freund

Where to begin when discussing Frida Kahlo? Her’s is an image that we know so well. Her trademark dark braided hair decorated with bright flowers, her colourful blouses and long, flowing skirts, indigenous jewellery, her ribbons, her distinctive monobrow are all familiar to us. She herself even feels familiar. And everyone seems to want a piece of her.

She was well-known in life, but became iconic in death. Pop culture’s fixation on Frida commenced not long after she died, with the “second coming of Frida” beginning in 1983 with Hayden Herrera’s biography propelling her into the pop culture limelight. The 20th Century artist’s striking image has cast a long shadow over the fashion industry since then, with designers from Jean Paul Gaultier to Dolce & Gabbana taking inspiration from her, and Givenchy sending Frida-inspired dresses down the runway as late as 2010, 56 years after her death. 

Salma Hayek as Frida Kahlo, 2002 Photographed by Annie Leibovitz

In 2002 Salma Hayek’s portrayal of Frida brought the artist to the big screen, right on queue. Only 2 years later a Pandora’s box of her personal belongings was opened and put on display at La Casa Azul, her home in Coyoacán. Her popularity may have reached it’s apex last June as some of the most famous and significant pieces of her wardrobe were put on display at the V&A in London, shown outside of Mexico for the first time in the hit exhibition Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up. Meanwhile, Designer Roland Mouret dedicated his Spring 2018 catwalk show to her and in March of the same year Mattel launched a Frida Barbie to mark International Women’s Day. There was even a Frida snapchat filter.

Yes, “Fridamania” is well and truly in the mainstream.

Frida Kahlo on a bench, carbon print, 1938 Photo: © Nickolas Muray / Courtesy of The Jacques and Natasha Gelman Collection of 20th Century Mexican Art / The Verge, Nickolas Muray Photo Archives

But isn’t all this appropriation and commodification, the Frida t-shirts, the Frida fridge magnets, the Frida vinyl bags and the plastic flower crowns, a distasteful encroachment on a woman who stood steadfastly against Capitalism? Is it not an insult to the very core of her identity? Maybe. But perhaps it does not have to be. 

Vogue, 1937

Jess Cartner-Morley, in an article for The Guardian, explores this idea. She quotes the curator of the V&A exhibition, Circe Henestrosa: “I’m not at all sure that fashion has glamourised or sanitised [Kahlo], I think she was incredibly glamorous and sophisticated already…Kahlo loved to shop for clothes, revelling in colour and fabric; she was always strikingly made up.” It is even said that she is “so intimately associated with the clothes she wore that staff at the Blue House in Mexico City, where her clothes are now displayed, have come to believe that the brocade skirts and embroidered shawls get heavier after dark, and to infer from this that her spirit comes back to possess them.”

Clothing and self-adornment were actually mediums through which Frida could express herself: her identity, her culture, her politics. She was very much, to quote the V&A, “making her self up.”If we treat her memory and her image with respect and understanding, if we take the time to learn about her life and the philosophy behind her look, if we don’t reduce her to a tacky t-shirt, a barbie doll or socks, then we can really learn a lot from her.

She used her aesthetic to take control of her own identity not just as a women but also as a painter, as a Mexican, as a bi-racial person, as a Marxist and as a person with disabilities. None of it was accidental. Every part of her image had a philosophy behind it. With this in mind, Frida Kahlo becomes all the more inspirational. She was truly original, truly inimitable but we can still learn from her some valuable lessons in self creation.

 

Here are 3 lessons in personal style from Frida Kahlo

 

1. Celebrate your roots

Roots, 1943, Frida Kahlo

Frida was nothing if not a proud Mexican. While still at school she engaged deeply with Mexican culture, political activism and issues of social justice. Her school promoted the concept of indigenismo  “a new sense of Mexican identity that took pride in the country’s indigenous heritage and sought to rid itself of the colonial mindset of Europe as superior to Mexico.”

Her love for her country and her connection to its history and culture manifested in her appearance. Interestingly, Frida appeared to have this experimental, introspective approach to her clothing before she was even an artist. Photographs from her youth reveal that she was inventing her iconic self image from as a very young age. For example, in one family portrait of the Kahlo y Calderón family, Frida appears dressed in her father’s three-piece suit. Her defiant disregard for 20th Century gender expectation are not dissimilar those of another Weird Sisters style muse, Colette. But unlike her French novelist counterpart, men’s suits come early in her style evolution, to be replaced by traditional Mexican dress.

Frida Kahlo (far left) in a family portrait, c. 1924

 By the 1920s Frida’s sisters and most young women in Mexico had their hair in the fashionable bobbed style and wore the contemporary waistless shifts. Meanwhile, Frida ignoring the trends of the time, was busy carving out a unique visual identity for herself with traditional long, centre-parted hair coiled up in ribbons and braids, and clothing inspired by her mother’s indigenous roots. In her early 20s, Frida started to wear a personalised version of traditional Tehuana dress: “full skirts, embroidered blouses and regal coiffure associated with a matriarchal society from the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Oaxaca, Mexico”. It was a proud assertion of her ethnic and national identity.

Frida appeared to share her mother’s propensity for “dressing up” to reflect Mexico’s history and culture. Her husband Diego Rivera had been credited with encouraging her to wear traditional Mexican dress. However, images of  Frida’s family dressed in Oaxaca’s regional costume, and of her mother dressed as Adelita, a revolutionary heroine of Mexican lore, indicate that it was woven into her childhood, in her blood even.

Frida Kahlo’s mother, Matilde Calderón y González Photographed circa 1897 by husband, Guillermo Kahlo

Frida Kahlo, My Grandparents, My Parents and Me, 1936

Frida represented the duality of her nature, mixing European and Mexican styles to reflect her own unique heritage. Her father was of German and possibly Jewish-Hungarian descent, while her mother was of  indigenous Mexican and Spanish descent. Her refusal even to remove her striking facial hair, her monobrow and moustache, speak to her commitment to authentically representing her heritage. She appears to have inherited her characteristic monobrow from her paternal grandmother and wore this family trait like a badge of honour. Likewise, she wore vintage clothing before vintage was concept, borrowing from her mother and grandmother. She used her own image to demonstrate her allegiance to her roots and particularly to her home, Mexico.

Frida’s devotion to her homeland is particularly evident in her jewellery. She liked to wear pieces from Pre-Columbian Mexico, historic pieces handcrafted by native Central Americans. For her, it was about more than simple aesthetics, it was representative of centuries of cultural tradition. It was a political statement. To be sure, it was not in keeping with the fashions of the time, in fact Frida was often said to be the butt of jokes when she went out in public boldly wearing her traditional Mexican dresses and her flamboyant jewellery. But her image, complete with an extravagant traditional Mexican hairstyle, was not intended to fall in line with the fashionistas. It was a message, a black-lash against cultural whitewashing and the intrusion of Capitalistic fashions from Gringolandia.

Self Portrait Along the Boarder Line Between Mexico and the United States, 1932 by Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo, Self Portrait with a necklace, 1933

The necklace Frida wears here is speculated to have been made from jade beads, excavated from a Mayan archaeological site in the late 1920s. It seems that she acquired these beads and made them into a necklace for herself. She literally wore her country’s history around her neck.

This notion is so poignant. Even if you are not of Mexican descent, you can still take  inspiration from this idea. If you can acquire something that has meaning to you, something that represents your history and culture, it could be a historical coin, some beads, a religious figurine, an antique trinket, semi-precious stones native to your country, even a piece of carved wood. Have it made into a necklace or, better yet, make it into a necklace yourself. Coin necklaces in particular are very popular currently, a way of inconspicuously wearing your country’s history proudly around your own neck. Frida teaches us to look back on our history whether it be Mexican, Nigerian, Korean, Scottish, Sri Lankan or any combination and celebrate it in our image.

Frida Kahlo, c.1940, by Nickolas Muray

 

2. Wear what you believe in

Frida had been an avowed Marxist since her schooldays. She had even formed a group that put on plays, debated philosophy and discussed the Russian classics known as the Cachuchas (“the titled caps”), many of whom would go on to be some of the leading figures of the Mexican intellectual elite. Her ideology was woven into the very fibre of her being. She even claimed that the year she was born was the first year of the Mexican Revolution, 1910 (rather than 1907), so that she could claim to be a “daughter of the Revolution”. She joined the Mexican Communist Party in 1927 and was introduced to a circle of political activists and artists, including the exiled Cuban communist Julio Antonio Mella and the Italian proto-feminist photographer Tina Modotti. Her political ideologies were encouraged and reinforced by this group of intelligentsia and by her passionate relationship with Diego Rivera – a Communist to his core – whom she was introduced to at one of Tina Modotti’s parties 1928. She even hosted, and had a brief affair with, Leon Trotsky when he was seeking asylum in Mexico.

Mexican Nationalism and Socialism shaped Frida’s thinking. It was a hugely influential part of her life, which, as with every part of her identity, was revealed in her self image.

Self portrait with Red Cap by Frida Kahlo (From the collection of Museo Dolores Olmedo), c.1925 by Frida Kahlo

Side note: Acknowledging’s Frida’s Communism makes the commercialisation of her image all the more bizarre. Last year Theresa May strangely thought it appropriate to wear a – pretty tasteless – plastic chunky bracelet that featured Frida’s face on all sides. Ironic given that, to quote Ayoola Solarin in her article for Dazed, ” austerity has led to a worse standard of living for disabled people, ethnic minorities, and women in the UK, so how the Conservative PM could think that her fashion moment was a good move is indicative of how far Kahlo’s appropriation has gone.”

All the more reason to wear what is symbolic of your actual beliefs, as Frida did. Her left-wing ideologies are observable not just in the traditional anti-colonialist Mexican dresses, but also in the Cachuchas’ red berets and her more modern and more masculine outfits.

Frida wearing a sombrero (Unknown photographer)

Emiliano Zapata (seated, centre) with staff, c. 1912. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Frida’s uncharacteristically plain and masculine outfit, complete with sombrero, is reminiscent of those worn by the Zapatistas, headed by Emiliano Zapata, one of the leading figures of the Mexican Revolution and now considered a national hero. Her commitment to socialism was also displayed in her adoption of non-Mexican articles of clothing such as the Russian headscarf

Frida Kahlo protesting whilst wearing a Russian-esque headscarf (Unknown photographer)

20th Century Russian poster (unknown artist)

Nevertheless, as Historian Alejandro Rosas asserts, “Mexicanness, socialism, and even certain touches of the Mexican Revolution were not Frida’s greatest source of inspiration. The origins of her creativity can be traced back to 1925, when the bus she was traveling home on one day was hit by a streetcar. Her fractured body filled her life with pain until the end of her days.”

Frida painting The Two Fridas, 1939, by Nickolas Muary

 

3. Become your own art

Frida was often the subject of her own art, about a third of her paintings are self portraits in part due to the vast amounts of time she was forced to spend in solitude recovering. She famously said:

“I paint self-portraits because I am so often alone, because I am the person I know best.”

&

“I am my own muse, I am the subject I know best. The subject I want to know better.”

 

Themes of pain, of being injured, fractured, mutilated are often present in her work. She had suffered from Polio as a child, which had made her right leg shorter and thinner than the left. Then, at the age of 18, she was involved in a violent bus accident that killed several people. Frida’s own injuries were near fatal, her ribs were fractured, both her legs and her collarbone broken and she was impailed through the pelvis with a handrail. The accident destroyed her dream of becoming a doctor, her ability to have children and left her with lifelong pain and immobility.

The Broken Column, 1944 by Frida Kahlo

Despite all this pain, her clothing, her art and her appearance served as creative mediums through which she could express the pain and overcome the challenges of living with disabilities. The traditional blouses she wore, the loose skirts and the elaborate hairstyles served to demonstrate her dedication to indigenismo, but also to cover what lay beneath. In an article for the New York Times, Hettie Judah discusses the dual purpose of Frida’s wardrobe with curator at the V&A Claire Wilcox: “The last thing you’d be thinking of when you saw her were her disabilities. The flamboyance was distracting.” The boxy shape of her traditional huipil blouses could drop loosely over a back brace or plaster cast, while her long flouncy skirts could disguise her wasted leg and their motion helped to hide her limp. Frida used her clothing and her self image to conquer her disabilities and physical imperfections; “she masters them, she supersedes them, she transcends them.” She even used a cast, something so uncomfortable and so restrictive, something that made it difficult to breathe, as a vehicle for self expression. She literally wore her political allegiances, the Communist hammer and sickle, on her heart.

Frida Kahlo wearing a cast decorated with a hammer and sickle, c.1941 by Florence Arquin

 

Ultimately, the greatest lesson we can take from Frida Kahlo’s iconic image is how transformative the power of self creation truly is. We can learn from Frida to not let allow ourselves to be defined by or dictated to by anyone but ourselves. Instead we must ask: How do I want the world to see me? What story do I want to tell?

 

Frida Kahlo inspired fashion for the 21st century

 

Embroidered Blouses

 

Frida Kahlo, Self Portrait, 1929

 

The Mexican colonial style blouse (blusa or camisa in Spanish), inspired by the European chemise, is a staple of Frida’s wardrobe and perhaps the easiest way of paying homage to her through fashion. Beautiful, comfortable and very easy to wear in 2019. Due to their history, embroidered blouses are quite culturally ambiguous so you won’t look necessarily like you’re trying to wear a costume or imitate a certain culture.

M&Co., Petite Floral Embroidered Peasant Top, £13

 

Shein, Floral Embroidered Blouse, £17.99

 

M&Co., Floral Embroidered Peasant Blouse, £19.60

Shein, Flounce Sleeve Drawstring Knot Embroidered Blouse, £10.99

 

Shein, Frilled Neckline Puff Sleeve Fitted Top, £14.99

 

If you would like an authentic huipil blouse, you can find them online here. The blouses are ethically made, come in a range of colours and are hand embroidered in small villages throughout Central and Southern Mexico.

Alternatively, if you would like something totally unique, you can learn how to make your own; the V&A have published an article that explains how here. Having your own one-of-a-kind homemade blouse is very Frida.

 

The Velvet Dress

Self Portrait in a Velvet Dress, 1926, Frida Kahlo

This wine coloured velvet dress is quite a rare look on Frida but it does showcase the diversity of her taste and the ways she liked to recreate and invent her own self image. The deep sensual red and provocative wrap style makes the dress as alluring now as it was in 1926.

Shein, High Split Velvet Wrap Dress, £22.99

If you’re looking for a more subtle nod to the dress in the painting, there is a similar dress available in black velvet at &Other Stories and a wine-red wrap mini dress available at ASOS.

&Other Stories, Velvet Midi Wrap Dress, £89

ASOS, Wrap front tie waist dress, £11

 

Floor-length Skirts

Maxi skirts, another Frida staple, are also ubiquitous to most cultures and therefore easily adoptable to almost anyone for a comfortable and relaxed look.

Frida and Diego Rivera, 1931 by Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo with cigarette and white dress 1929, Photographed by Guillermo Davila

Roman, White Tiered Maxi Skirt, £25

Doorway to Fashion, Cotton & Lace Maxi Skirt, from £13

(available in over 10 colours)

OCHENTA, Bohemian Maxi Skirt, from £16

(available in over 15 colours)

 

Marxist Headware

Self portrait with Red Cap by Frida Kahlo (From the collection of Museo Dolores Olmedo), c.1925 by Frida Kahlo

Frida Kahlo protesting whilst wearing a Russian-esque headscarf (Unknown photographer)

If you’re inclined towards the Left…

&Other Stories, Wool Beret, £23

(Available in the classic Communist colour of choice: red. But also in mustard yellow, powder blue, cream and black)

&Other Stories, Lightweight Scarves, from £35

In case you are wondering, yes I am aware of the irony of using Capitalist means to recommend Communist-inspired clothing. There’s no excuse I suppose, but most of us have got to buy our clothes somewhere.

 

The Rebozo

Frida Kahlo, 1939, Photographed by Nickolas Murray

The Rebozo (or shawl) was often worn by Frida. Shawls such as these, again, are common across the world from India to Ireland. But, as explained by the V&A, they hold particular significance in Mexico, having “evolved during the colonial period to become a symbol of womanhood and — after Independence — nationhood. Nineteenth-century paintings and lithographs show Mexican women of all social classes wearing rebozos.”

Pashminas and other tasseled scarves look very similar but are perhaps a more culturally sensitive option that still references Mexico’s heritage and to Frida Kahlo with respect.

Amazon, Soft Pashmina, £9.99

 

The 3 lessons in personal style Frida Kahlo teaches us:

 

1. Celebrate your roots

2. Wear what you believe in

3. Become your own art

 

“I am nothing but a “small damned” part of a revolutionary movement. Always revolutionary, never dead, never useless”

– from The Diary of Frida Kahlo

 

She was certainly right about that. Frida Kahlo’s legacy, her very own revolutionary movement, may never die. Until it does, Viva la Revolución.

 

 

*Images are not my own. No copyright infringement intended

“The best men can be”, Gillette, Piers Morgan and the crisis of masculinity

Gillette’s short film Believe caused quite a stir. When I saw the commotion online, I hadn’t actually seen it yet. So I went to find out what was causing so much offence. To be frank, what I found was pretty underwhelming.

I was expecting something far more radical, to have caused so much fuss. What I found was a pretty reasonable assumption that there are some behaviours typical to the male gender that are in need of improvement. It didn’t suggest that men are intrinsically bad by any stretch of the imagination. 

The troubling behaviour that it brought attention to really shouldn’t have made any half decent person disagree with them, or so I thought. So what’s really going on? 

It shouldn’t be so difficult to acknowledge that the world and gender relations are not perfect. Whether you identify as a feminist or not, this is not mere opinion. This is fact. We live in a world in which female infanticide is staggeringly high in two of the world’s leading economies China and India. It’s not exactly a paradise of equality in the West either. According to the UK Office of National Statistics, 2 women per week are killed by a partner or ex-partner, equating to roughly one murdered women every 2.6 days. An EU-wide survey conveyed similarly bleak results:

• One in 10 women have experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 15, while one in 20 has been raped
• One in five women have experienced some form of stalking since the age of 15, with 5% having experienced it in the 12 months preceding the survey. 
• However, three out of four stalking cases reported in the survey never come to the attention of the police
• One in 10 women have been stalked by a previous partner
• Of women in the survey who indicate they have been raped by their current partner, about one third (31%) say they have experienced six or more incidents of rape by their partner
• Just over one in 10 women experienced some form of sexual violence by an adult before they were 15
• Most violence is carried out by a current or former partner, with 22% of women in relationships reporting partner abuse

A similar situation can be observed in the US.  

This normalisation of male violence as demonstrated by the “boys will be boys” trope must be the underlying cause here. The comparatively smaller issues such as cat-calling and the like – as shown in the advert – are symptomatic of this blasé attitude to male culpability. I would hope that most men would attempt to distance themselves from these behaviours. #NotAllMen has proved that, even if it isn’t the reaction that feminists were hoping for. If you don’t identify or engage with the behaviours that are being criticised in the advertisement, then surely it doesn’t apply to you, you should actually like the advert? Surely you should agree? 

Evidently not. Piers Morgan, in an article for the Daily Mail, described the advert as an “absurd load of PC-crazed bilge” and asserted that “It’s basically saying that it’s wrong, and harmful, to be masculine, to be a man.” Is there any truth in this? Does he have a point? 

Let’s play Devil’s advocate for a moment. To be sure, there is a lot to unpack here. There are some potential issues, perhaps one could be cynical and view Gillette as attempting to commodify and capitalise on feminist sympathies. Putting said concerns aside, one may then ask: is there, as Piers Morgan has said, a war on men?

Just hear him out: is there a war on men?

Certainly the onset of third wave feminism has brought about some worry on the subject. In fairness, hashtags that promote anti-male sentiment such as #killallmen or #menaretrash would not be tolerated from a liberal audience were the roles reversed. This is not equality, it’s misandry. That is not to say that women don’t experience threats of violence and trolling online. They actually get it all the time. The trouble with #killallmen and #menaretrash is that it is mandated and even encouraged by people who claim to fight for equality. It is somewhat plausible that Gillette could be seen to be pandering to this extreme leftist ideology. Are Piers Morgan and co., therefore, projecting a different issue onto the Gillette advert? Is there a deeper issue that is informing the context of the Gillette debate?

Traditional Masculinity in Decline 

What do we mean by traditional masculinity? Morgan quotes David French: “‘The assault on traditional masculinity – while liberating to men who don’t fit traditional norms – is itself harmful to the millions of young men who seek to be physically and mentally tough, to rise to challenges, and demonstrate leadership under pressure. The assault on traditional masculinity is an assault on their very natures. Are boys disproportionately adventurous? Are they risk-takers? Do they feel a need to be strong? Do they often by default reject stereotypically ‘feminine’ characteristics? Yes, yes, yes and yes.’”

(Side note: I find this assertion that men are “disproportionately” more adventurous and risk-taking than their female counterparts particularly unconvincing. I have a twin brother and I would say I have always been the more “adventurous” of the two of us. I have travelled to the other side of the world on my own on more than one occasion and met plenty of other solo women (perhaps more than men) while I was there. Solo travel is arguably more “risky” for women than for men, but it doesn’t seem to stop us. Purely anecdotal, I know, but I felt irked by that assumption.) 

Despite all that, there are some fair points made here, that many young men aspire to be leaders and to physical and mental excellence (though, it should be pointed out, so do many women). There should not be an attack on or an attempt to eradicate all elements of masculinity. But it is the issues that come with traditional ideals of masculinity: harassment of women, bravado, cat-calling, female objectification, machismo, violence etc. that we really shouldn’t be sorry to see the back of. A distaste for the potentially harmful and aggressive aspects of what have come (perhaps wrongly) to be associated with manhood, may actually be a good thing for both men and women. After all, machismo and aggression is not equal to strength. These qualities could even represent a weakness of character, a fragile masculinity that needs protection and coddling and cannot withstand challenges or criticism.

Is it not an insult to men’s moral and intellectual agency that they should be debased to such a low standard? Men aren’t violent, mindless, reasonless brutes. Men aren’t inherently bad, so why should anyone be defending the right to act like it? Gillette disputes the idea that physical violence is natural to boys and men. The backlash to Believe, consequently, is somewhat confusing. Morgan accuses Gillette of branding all men “a bunch of uneducated, vile, sexist, harassing predators”. But it seems that he’s missing the mark; Gillette’s point was that this violence and this lack of respect for females isn’t in actuality what is natural, this isn’t what men are. The point is that men are better than that. 

Strength can be more than a simple show of brute force, exerting will over those too physically weak to stop you. It can mean strength of mind and strength of character, and sometimes strength of body used to defend those who need it. There are ways of embodying all that’s right with traditional values of manhood; courage, conviction, protectiveness, without taking it to a violent or oppressive extreme. There is room for both traditionally masculine and feminine traits, both are valuable, both are important, both should apply to both modern men and modern women. Traditionally feminine traits such as compassion do not have to be in conflict with masculinity.

 

Positive versus Negative Masculinity

You can take the good without the bad. Popular shows such as Brooklyn 99 and Sex Education are very different, but both present modern, healthy versions of positive masculinity. In Brooklyn 99, Sergeant Terry Jeffords – played by Terry Crews, whose testimony regarding his own sexual assault was used in Believe – is a prime example of positive masculinity. He is traditionally masculine in the sense that he is physically strong (Herculean even), he demonstrates leadership in times of crisis, is brave and successful. He also has a family, a wife and 3 daughters, who he loves and cares for dearly. He is sensitive and compassionate as well as being strong and confident, Terry never uses his physical magnitude to unjustly intimidate or control the people around him. He is fine balance of strength and softness. Like Brooklyn 99, Sex Education has been praised for its fresh take and nuanced representation of positive masculinity. Jackson is probably the most traditionally manly character on the show. He’s athletic, he’s man’s man, popular, funny but not possessive or aggressive. Like Terry, he only ever uses his strength and status to protect. He is also open and honest in his love life and conveys emotional vulnerability to facilitate a healthy relationship. Why should any of that be so difficult? Why should that be threatening?

Terry Crews may be a hero to so many young men not least because he is physically astounding, undoubtedly, he is the real life embodiment of what can be and what is so wonderful about men. He is  a prime example of how feminism can be a force to uplift and empower men as well as women. He stood by other survivors of sexual assault, bravely told his story, knowing that sexism and ignorance could lose him fans and possibly a lot of respect.

Crews made a very important point about how physical strength often is not the most important factor regarding assault, it’s so much more than that, it’s about power. But I digress. Gillette’s clip of Crews saying “men need to hold other men accountable” is extremely significant in that it addresses the “us and them” mentality that surrounds the feminist debate. 

Watson at the UN Headquarters in 2014

HeForShe (and SheForHe)

Nearly 5 years ago Emma Watson gave a speech at the UN conveying the importance of feminism as a unifying force rather than a polarising issue for men and women – she received a backlash from feminists and non-feminists alike – this was disappointing particularly for the former. If nothing else, women attempting to possess and put an embargo on feminism is peevish. More than that, it’s not conducive to a health cooperative society. At worst, it could likely lead the gender equality movement to failure. Feminism should be for everyone, whether you like it or not. Feminism is for everyone. That is the only way it can put an end to the problems that affect people of all genders. Divisiveness and the alienation of would-be allies does nothing to help any of us. And, lest we forget, gay men, trans men, men of colour, men with mental health issues etc. are all men too, and can contribute to and benefit from feminist activism.While I understand and acknowledge the argument that the male angle on feminism can derail important conversations about women, I think feminism’s scope should be infinite. We should be able to have conversations about everyone, of all genders, races and orientations, in the context of feminism. Conversations about sexism and its effects on men does not have displace or replace conversations surrounding women’s issues. There is room for all.

 

“I have realised that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop”

– Emma Watson

On the other end of the spectrum, the problem with the men representing a form of toxic masculinity is that they are seeing feminism as the enemy, as a force that tears down men and raises up women, not to meet them but to take their place. To some extent, they are not entirely to blame for this ideology. When women fly the flag of feminism whilst hashtaging “kill all men”, you can see where they’d get the idea that equality isn’t the end game here. A matriarchy is. 

But that’s not what real feminism is, or at least should be. Emma Watson was right all those years ago to point out that we are not vying for dominance. We should be working together to make sure that the injustices that face us, and have faced our ancestors before us, are eradicated. So many men argue against feminism, citing statistics regarding the disproportionate numbers of male suicide and authorities that are in place to help and protect people not taking violence against men seriously. It is sexist attitudes like these that silence male victims of abuse and tell men they must be in control, especially in control of women. If they admit to being abused, particularly at the hands of a female partner it’s seen to be emasculating  and they are often ridiculed as weak or as not being a “real” man. It is sexist attitudes such as these that hurt men. These are the ideologies and misunderstandings that caused 50 Cent to mock Terry Crews for speaking out about his assault; the idea that to be assaulted, worse yet, to admit to being assaulted is shameful.

But feminism could be the answer to those problems if we all allowed it to work as it’s meant to for everyone. Feminism could be the antidote to the patriarchal societal values that tell us “boys don’t cry” and that “real men” don’t allow themselves to suffer abuse.  These institutionalised ideas are the root cause of the shocking statistics for male suicide, owing to the inability to voice emotions and the pressure to be “tough”, leading eventually to severe mental illness and death. 

 

Fragile Femininity?

Morgan asserts in his article that “If I made a commercial aimed at female customers predicated on the generalised notion that women are liars, cheats, psychopaths and murderers (such women exist: I’ve interviewed many of them for my Killer Women crime series) and so every woman has to be taught how not to be those things, all hell would break loose and rightly so.” 

In fairness to those who have found fault with Gillette’s short film, if the tables were turned and it was a women’s beauty/healthcare brand presenting an advert that criticised femininity, some women may have been up in arms in the same way many men have been. But wouldn’t that then be a form of fragile femininity? That would be representative of a fringe feminist group that immaturely denies any fault or possible flaws in females. We should all be able to take criticism. Having said that, equating an advert that claims that women are murderous psychopaths with the critique of toxic masculinity in Believe is a bit of a stretch. Murderers, whether they be male or female, are not common. Female murderers are statistically even less common. Morgan’s very own series alludes to this in its title Killer Women, suggesting that this combination is unusual or even shocking. Gillette has hardly accused men of being sadistic, murderous, bloodthirsty maniacs. Now that really would have been worthy of controversy. It merely shows common behaviours that are generally considered harmless like boys fighting and cat-calling. 

A more fair equation would be an advert that showed, for example, girls bullying other girls with cruel comments at school or at work. That would be a valid way of showing that girls can do better. Indeed, we can all do better and we should work against the negative stereotypes that concern our genders, rather than deny they exist. #GirlsSupportGirls for example does tackle that issue, encouraging and drawing attention to instances where girls and women are seen to support one another and raise each other up, rather than adhering to the traditional stereotype of women deliberately tearing one another down.

 

Men Supporting Men 

I thought Believe made some pretty fair points. The focus was not actually on women, it was primarily on men and what they can do to help one another. There was, of course, reference made to the negative impact of female objectification and harassment but the main focus was actually on men treating other men with more compassion. Not bullying other boys/men for being sensitive, calling them “sissy” and not accepting violent behaviour: “we don’t treat each other that way.” Allowing the old “boys will be boys” mentality to continue will impact badly on women, yes, but it may impact worse on men. As stated above, domestic violence in the form of male on female crime are statistically horrific (women are far more likely to be killed by a partner or family member) but men are actually far more likely to be killed by other men than women are: “Globally, 79 per cent of all homicide victims were male and 21 per cent female. The global average male homicide rate is, at 9.7 per 100,000, almost four times the global average female rate (2.7 per 100,000 females). Males lead homicide trends both as victims and as perpetrators.”

Traditional masculinity tends to hurt the men that believe in it most. An attack on traditional masculinity is not an attack on men, it is the opposite. Putting an end to this normalisation of male violence towards one another is beneficial first and foremost to men. 

 

“Until men stand up and say, “This harassment, this abuse, these assaults are wrong,” nothing will change. Men need to hold other men accountable.”

– Terry Crews

 

In any case, it cannot be argued that Believe is directly misandrist. It even says “we believe in the best in men” and shows a reel of examples of men exhibiting courage and strength, stepping in and stepping up to behaviour that they don’t deem acceptable. This is chivalry, is it not? This is the heroic ideal in its 21st century form.

Isn’t all this violence, all this hurt, the real war on men?

Perhaps the central question here is: what kind of man do you want to be? What makes a man a man? In these questions, perhaps, you will find your answer. 

 

 

 

* Images are not my own. All images used have been sourced from Gillette’s Believe, the United Nations and Unsplash. No copyright infringement intended.

 

Colette, the Original French It-Girl

First in the new “3 lessons in personal style” series, we’ll be taking a look at Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette (better known simply as ‘Colette’).

Keira Knightley’s dazzling performance as the proto-feminist fin-de-siècle author and performer Colette may spell a revived interest in her legendary personal style.

In Colette, we see the author’s novels, and particularly the mesmerising character of Claudine, take Paris by storm. Colette’s own life experiences did much to inspire her writing, so too, her formidable fashion sense influenced and inspired the women who read her novels. In the film there are mini Claudines seen dotted about Paris, all sporting a pseudo-demure school girl black dress with a white collar. It wouldn’t be a surprise to see a few Claudines roaming the streets of Paris, London or New York today. A more likely source of inspiration, though, may be the dreamy country girl dresses of Colette’s youth, or the chic ensembles and masculine suits she favours in her Paris years.

Costume designer Andrea Flesch’s incredible attention to detail and commitment to period authenticity lends an air of grace to the production. Flesch points out that Colette’s style choices mirror her own personal evolution, but equally importantly, the shifting fashions and public thought in society at the turn of the century. “This period changed quite often; the shapes changed every two or three years…It was a very interesting time in fashion, the 1890s-1910s.” Colette, however, had her own style. “She was as free [with clothes] as she was in everything.”

Colette’s legacy still looms large over Hollywood and fashion houses today. The legendary Paris boutique Colette (which closed only in 2017), of course, was named for her. Colette can even be credited with discovering Givenchy star and eventual fellow fashion icon Audrey Hepburn, having cast the virtually unknown actress in a theatre adaptation of her novel Gigi in 1951. Colette, and Wash Westmoreland’s cinematic representation of her, can still offer some valuable lessons to us in the 21st Century in terms of using fashion as a vehicle for our own self expression and self realisation. As Lauren Cochrane points out in her article for The Guardian, “Style isn’t a footnote of Colette’s legacy, it’s a central part of it. Sixty-five years after her death, her influence extends beyond your bookshelf, Instagram captions and cinema: Colette’s free spirit is inspiring our wardrobes, too.”

 

Here are 3 lessons in personal style from Colette to live by

 

1. Priortise comfort and personal style over trends

Colette wears what makes her feel comfortable. She dislikes the garish red dress that Willy bought her and is uncomfortable in a corset. So she doesn’t wear it. The decision to not wear a corset is actually ideologically significant. The corset in 18th and 19th century Europe was not simply something to wear to make the waist look smaller and the breasts look bigger, but a complicated and often contradictory symbol of culture and society. It was representative of both the sexuality and sensuality of the female form but also of virginal obedience and patriarchal control of women’s bodies. Society closely associated a tightly-laced waist with a tightly controlled mind. Usually women and pubescent girls were simply not allowed to opt out of wearing the corset. Colette’s rejection of the corset therefore is not just a mere fashion choice, its a rebellion against society itself and its expectations of her as a woman. 

Clothing should be about enjoyment and expression of personal style. It should be about you, what you like, what you think and what represents who you are. If other people don’t like it – and Parisian high society certainly didn’t – who cares? The people who have confidence in their own style and what they like to wear don’t follow the trends, they set them.

 

 

2. Don’t be afraid to experiment 

Sticking to clothes or a look that make you feel like you, shouldn’t mean a wardrobe and style that never changes. Your personal style should evolve with you, it should represent who you are at that point in time, even on that day. We see Colette evolve in the film from a self-proclaimed country girl hailing from rural Burgundy, to elegant Parisienne de la mode. Her style reflects that personal transformation. Things you cling to as a personal signature don’t actually have to be permanent. At the beginning of the film, Colette has extraordinarily long hair, which she claims she would “never” cut. But when she does, she inadvertently creates a look that becomes iconic and flies in the face of traditional expectations of femininity.

3. Fearlessly be yourself

Fashion and style should be an outward expression of who you are on the inside. The most immediately apparent manifestation of this for Colette is in her mixing of masculine and feminine. Her clothes come to represent her sexual identity. Colette could probably be identified as bisexual or pansexual in today’s terms. In the film we see three overlapping romantic and sexual relationships, with Willy, then Belle and finally with Missy. At first her style is quite traditionally feminine with soft light colours, flowing fabrics and frills aplenty. Later, as she starts to explore her attraction to women and engages in an affair with Belle, her clothing starts to reflect a more nuanced version of herself that encompasses both masculine and feminine traits. 

This was Flesch’s vision for Colette. As she tells Vogue; rather than adhering to the binding, rigid fashion of  her peers, Colette creates her own signature style made up of  simple blouses, cravats, cropped jackets. “I made my costumes simple and chic, but a little tomboyish…This balance of masculine and feminine was exactly my aim with the costumes.” Colette gets even more radical later in the film, flouting gender norms with Missy as a gender-defying influence and source of inspiration, she gets even more daring with her fashion choices and wears a man’s three-piece suit. Like Missy, she wanted to break the rules, she wanted to shock. Despite this, Colette remains steadfastly her own person.

 

 

 

 Colette-inspired fashion for the 21st Century

 

The Country Girl

 

 

Sézane, Jules Blouse, (€105)

Almost identical to the lacy high-neck blouses Colette has, but still chic and wearable.

The Claudine Dress

Boohoo, Contrast Collar and Cuff Dress, (£12)

Amazon Fashion, FuturaLondon Women’s Skater Dress, (£14.99)

This dress, thankfully, no longer is associated with a school uniform. It’s probably a bit more ‘Wednesday Adams’ than ‘Catholic school girl’ but the sleek style and monochrome palate hasn’t lost its appeal.

The Boater Hat

ASOS, natural straw easy boater, (£12)

Forever 21, Contrast-Trim Straw Boater Hat, (£12)

A straw boater has a sense of timeless sophistication that a baseball cap just can’t give you.

The Sailor Dress

Yes Style, Short-sleeved Sailor Dress, (£13.61)

The nautical dress was made iconic by Audrey Hepburn’s Gigi. It’s almost too cute. Almost. If you want to make a more subtle reference to the sailor look, blouses like these could provide a nod to the nautical theme, tucked into jeans or a mini skirt.

 

 

Yes Style, Sailor Elbow-Sleeve Top, (£15.88)

 

White Shirts and Blouses (worn with a dark cravat)

 

 

Yes Style, Tie-Neck Pleated Blouse, (£14.37)

Sézane, Lady shirt, (£90)

 

 

Shirt: Sézane, Pierre shirt (£80)

Black Necktie: Yes Style, Plain Ribbon Bow Tie (£4.72)

Blue Necktie: Yes Style, Ribbon Bow Tie (£5.25)

The contrasting monochrome colours are both simple and classic, feminine and masculine.

 

 

The Suit

 

 

Left, ASOS, Tailored Mix & Match Suit in Black, (from £45)

Right, Debenhams, The Collection – Grey pinstripe suit jacket (£24.50)

Wearing a suit in 2019 doesn’t have quite the same shock factor as it did in 1909 but it can still give you a sexy masculine edge.

 

&Other Stories, Hourglass Herringbone Blazer, (£80)

 

UNIQLO, Women Satin Smart Ankle Length Trousers, (£24.90)

Incorporating individual tailored pieces such as a sharp blazer with jeans, or suit trousers with a casual T-shirt is an understated way of elevating an outfit.

 

 Lessons in personal style we can learn from Colette

 

1. Prioritise comfort and personal style over trends

2. Don’t be afraid to experiment

3. Fearlessly be yourself

And a bonus: 4. “Don’t ever wear artistic jewelry; it wrecks a woman’s reputation.”

 

Even rule-breakers have rules.

 

 

 

*Images are not my own. All images were sourced from the websites mentioned or stills from Colette,  Lionsgate, 2018. No copyright infringement intended.

Dissecting Sexuality and Gender in Netflix’s Sex Education

Warning: Spoilers

So I finished watching Sex Education last night. I was late to the party but made up for it by binging all 8 episodes on Netflix in 2 days.

There was a lot to praise about the show. It could have so easily become a simple, trashy lame excuse for soft porn, but as it turns out, it achieved a lot more. Undeniably, and unsurprisingly, there was a lot of sex. But Sex Education still managed to keep the fine balance between cute, funny and sexy.

An even more impressive feat was tackling issues like homophobia, transphobia, feminism, abortion and class without coming across preachy or pandering. To be sure, that’s a lot of wokeness to cover in 8 hours but the show is subtle in it’s treatment of the problems its characters face. Lessons in building healthy relationships and consent are succinctly woven in, often in simple one-liners such as “You can’t choose who you’re attracted to” and “No means no” that flow effortlessly into the story, never feeling condescending or jammed-in to make sure they covered their bases.

Sex Education also avoids many pit falls that most of its sexed-up teen comedy-drama predecessors fell foul of. The characters are largely free of tired stereotypes and are all granted demonstrable complexity. The whole Otis-Maeve-Jackson love triangle appeared at first to be following a familiar old trope. It goes like this: nerdy but sweet ‘deep’ guy (Otis), falls in love with beautiful, neurotic girl (Maeve), but she’s with the archetypal ‘jock’ popular kid (Jackson). This is something we’ve seen over and over and over again. But this time, Otis doesn’t get the girl in the end (not yet, at least) nor does he believe he is fundamentally entitled to her. Maeve isn’t the done-to-death manic pixie dream girl that serves as a cure to Otis’ problems, she’s a driven character with goals and problems of her own to overcome. Jackson too is a multi-dimensional, loveable and sympathetic character. You could easily be rooting for him just as much as you root for Otis; they are not simply pitted against each other, the good guy and the bad guy- the guy she should be with and the guy who’s got her. There are jealousies, mixed emotions and nuances. Everything doesn’t just revolve around Otis.

Sex Education acknowledges and reflects the realities of love, sex and dating, using the “sex clinic” as a vehicle to explore the highs and lows young people experience as they reach sexual maturity. Unlike so many teen shows it reminds us that sex isn’t always…sexy. Sometimes you vomit while you’re giving a blowjob, sometimes you can’t ejaculate and sometimes you have to ask your partner to go and get your Mum. The show charmingly demonstrates that though sexual blunders are embarrassing, they’re normal, they happen to everyone and it is not the end of the world if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing.

The show also thankfully avoids stereotyping young men as singleminded, sex crazed creeps, and young women as judgemental, bitchy and sex averse. Lily, for one, point-blank propositions her male peers for sex. Maeve is a particularly indispensable character for a femme millennial audience. Not necessarily even likeable, definitely not soft or kind, she is unapologetic, pragmatic and smart. Her reaction to discovering that she is pregnant whilst at a house party is somewhat surprising, though very well-handled. There’s no crying, no hysterics. Maeve is a 17-year-old having to support herself whilst trying to achieve her potential at school, she is in no doubt as to what is the right decision for her. Equally, the abortion scene is sensitive without being sensational and totally medically accurate. It is not, however, dealt with heartlessly, the gravity of the situation and pre-op anxiety are palpable, but at the same time, it is not a scene wracked with shame or doubt.

Maeve is strong. She’s socially ostracised, relentlessly bullied and slut-shamed, nicknamed “cock biter” and though it’s clear that it hurts, she never comes across as a victim. She’s a fighter. She, frankly, has bigger fish to fry than making her classmates like her and she works hard to remain afloat under financial and academic pressure, whilst juggling a drug dealing brother, a new relationship and friendships. Maeve is the pivotal voice of the show’s overt feminist message. Her assertion of her own intellectual ability: “I’m really smart.” is imperative. She does not water it down. She does not say “I work really hard” or “I think I’m quite smart”, she knows she is smart and that she deserves the opportunity to reach her potential.

The show also does a good job of representing a healthy attitude towards women and relationships in young men. Otis and Jackson represent the very antithesis of toxic and fragile masculinities. We often see Otis making the case for feminism. Particularly note-worthy is his exasperated outburst while Jackson is changing for swim practise “She’s not an object! You keep describing her as inanimate objects, but she is a person.” Otis points this out in a male locker room, symbolic of course of ‘locker room talk’ and it’s traditional function as an exclusively male space where women are discussed in often degrading terms. He further solidifies his role as an ally to women in his dealing with Liam and his romantic obsession with Lizzie. He is sympathetic to Liam’s unrequited attraction, “Sometimes the people we like don’t like us back, and there’s nothing you can do about it.” But sympathy does not come at the expense of the woman’s right to say no; “I know it’s hard but if you’ve asked her and she’s said no, then I think you’ve got your answer.” This is significant in a world that so often encourages young men to ‘never give up, never stop trying to get the woman of your dreams.’ Teen rom-coms as a genre are particularly guilty of encouraging young men to persevere, to make the “grand gesture”, even when they’ve been refused on multiple occasions. Sex Education turns this Hollywood norm on its head, conveying how ludicrous it truly is in a valuable lesson about respect and consent. Notably, Otis’ defence of women is almost always when they’re not there to defend themselves.

The women of Sex Education are not damsels in distress, they are on the front lines, defending themselves. Maeve, for example, fends for herself in episode 1 when some moron keeps heckling her with objectifying banalities such as “Nice rack, Wiley” she proceeds to kick him in the groin. Jackson is there and as we find out he is attracted to Maeve and it is clear that he disapproves of his classmate’s harassing comments from his facial expression. He could play the hero, he could jump to her defence. But he doesn’t, he steps back and allows her to handle it herself. When she has left, he tells his peer that he deserves what he got. Remarkably, Jackson is never possessive or controlling towards Maeve, even when he suspects she has feelings for Otis. There is never a big show of aggressive testosterone-fuelled rage. There is never a “you’re my woman and I own you” moment. Jackson is in fact much more emotionally vulnerable than most romantic male leads. As Sophia Benoit points out, “the guys who are unsuccessful on the show have one thing in common: they’re deeply isolated and closed-off emotionally”. Adam is a prime example of this. His lack of confidence in himself, emotionally abusive father and inability to communicate his wants and needs effectively have transformed him into a bully. He becomes isolated and dejected, having seemingly no one to turn to, and takes out his frustrations on Eric. The message is clear: communication and openness is key to healthy relationships (whether sexual or otherwise).

Despite all this, the school is hardly a feminist utopia of gender equality and sex positivity. As aforementioned, there is bullying, harassment and plenty of slut-shaming. Most significant may be the revenge porn incident in episode 6. Popular mean girl Ruby is betrayed when a picture of her vagina is leaked to the whole school. It transpires that Ruby’s supposed best friend Olivia was intending to shame Ruby publicly as a punishment for her cruelty. This episode, however, is surprisingly significant – counterintuitively – in terms of providing examples of girls protecting other girls. In spite of Ruby’s appalling treatment of her, Maeve is determined to find out who leaked the explicit photo and to prevent Ruby’s public humiliation; “This kind of thing sticks. And it hurts, and no one deserves to be shamed, not even Ruby.” The salient point here is a valuable one. Even though you may not like someone personally, your fundamental values have to be the same. You have to be on their side in a case of injustice, Otis and Maeve acknowledge that everyone deserves the same rights to dignity and privacy whether they like them or not. Significant too is the potentially iconic “it’s my vagina” scene. When students start suspecting that the pornographic image is of Ruby, Olivia attempts to take the hit, she stands up in assembly and claims that the picture is of herself. There is then a Spartacus-esque example of solidarity, with most female students and Jackson standing up and proclaiming that the vagina in question is their’s.

Perhaps the most interesting character arch, though, is Eric’s. Again, on the surface it appears as if we are confronting another worn-out stereotype: the gay best friend (only this time, the male lead’s side-kick). But where rom-coms and chick-flicks have failed, Sex Education succeeds in dealing with gay men as actual multi-dimensional people, with real emotions and facing very real problems. Eric is a departure from Sex and the City’s Stanford and Mean Girls’ Damien. He encompasses everything that was right with those characters inasmuch he is hilarious, witty, and stylish. However, what is crucially different in Sex Education is that we actually witness some of the painful realities of growing up gay. The show also briefly touches on some trans issues, though, it should be noted that there are no trans characters featured. Eric and Otis both dress in women’s clothing and wear makeup for an outing on Eric’s birthday. One unfortunate situation leads to another, and Eric ends up walking home alone at night.

A violent experience ensues, in which Eric is verbally and physically abused and his assailants spit on and humiliate him. It is a chilling and all too realistic account of the dangers that face trans and queer people. The encounter sees Eric temporarily lose a part of his identity, his confidence is shattered, immediately after he abandons his outlandish neon outfits in favour of a muted khaki hoodie and loose jeans. He also loses his ability to brush off his peers’ cutting insults and punches Anwar, “the only other gay in school” in the face. This could be more poignant than simply giving a bully some payback for all the hurt he’s caused, it is perhaps a metaphor for Eric’s struggle with, and attack on his own queerness in the wake of his own assault.

Eric reasserts his sense of self in two unexpected places. First, he encounters a man trying to find his way to a wedding. This stranger wears a flamboyant patterned gold blazer, electric blue eyeshadow and “fierce” blue nail polish. The exchange seems to inspire a resurge of confidence in Eric and demonstrates an unapologetic form of black gay manhood, one in which a person express their identity as they choose. Later, Eric joins his family at church and there, perhaps most surprisingly, he regains his self. Organised religion is rarely a healing force in LGBT+ stories. It is seldom even explored other than as an obstacle representing fundamentalist and traditionalist values that usually serve to oppress and shame queer people. Here, however, is a refreshing reminder that things do not necessarily have to be that way. The church scene strips the Christian message back to its very core, what this means to Eric and maybe to all LGBT+ people could be momentous:

“Jesus loves! His love is greater than fear. His love is stronger than uncertainty. His love is deeper than hate. Jesus said: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ Yourself. Yourself. Love starts here. We must all learn to love ourselves before we truly love others. Who are you to not love yourself?”

The pastor embraces Eric, “You are welcome any time. This is your family.” Contrary to the painful, though oftentimes accurate, portrayal of religion as a primary source of self-loathing and oppression in a gay person’s life, Eric is not dismissed or disdained, he is uplifted. It may be true that this scene is more about community and Eric’s reconciling his identity as a gay black man, than it is about religion in essence. But it is a commendable effort in beginning to harmonise seemingly disparate aspects of identity, that many queer people from religious backgrounds can struggle with.

Race is actually one of the most under-explored concepts in Sex Education. However, relatable, finely-drawn characters such as Jackson, Ola and (principally) Eric may stand as testament to the show’s commitment to portraying underrepresented groups. There is, however, a particularly beautiful sequence that explores the immigrant experience in Britain. When Eric gets dressed up for the school dance in an unapologetically African, unapologetically gay outfit with glittering makeup, a colourful suit and a traditional West African Gele (head tie), it unclear how is his conservative Ghanian-Nigerian family will react. His appearance is met with cliff-hanging silence, which is then broken by his father: “Wait. I’ll drive you.” Eric’s father gives him a lift to the dance but appears to lose his nerve as Eric approaches the school. At this point, the oft alluded to rift between first and second generation immigrants is explored. It becomes clear that Eric’s father is a good man, his fear is informed by his own experiences and his own struggle to acclimatise to a new culture and country. He knows how much he had to change, to fit in and he fears for Eric. It is an honest fear, not a prejudiced homophobia, coming from a place of love and concern. He wants to protect his son from a world that he knows can be harsh on difference.

This is, no doubt, a very common fear amongst the parents of LGBT+ kids. No matter how accepting you may be of your child’s orientation, it can be difficult to shake the fear that they will be discriminated against, abused or worse. This fear is dealt with sympathetically, Eric’s father is given a chance to articulate his fears and his understandable urge to protect his son. But ultimately Eric is able to convey to his father that fear does not help him and suppressing the way he expresses his identity is not the answer. Eric tells his father “this is me.” He represents a generation of immigrants that refuse to change who they are to fit in. Eric clearly gets through to his father and a mutual respect and understanding is reached. “Maybe I am learning from my brave son.”

Indeed, there is a lot to be learned from this show. Sex Education is very much a product of its time. It speaks to and for a generation where feminism is mainstream, as is the call for sexual and racial diversity, representation and sex positivity. Ncuti Gatwa (Eric) affirms the show’s positive influence, telling The Sunday Times, “I’ve had so many DMs and messages from people saying that Eric has inspired them to be what they want to be. He presents masculinity in ways we’ve not seen before.” Emma Mackey (Maeve) concurs, “This show is quite revolutionary and political in its own right, and I think it could have a big effect on young women and men.” The show’s impact on its audience and on other film and television could be radical, it could even be revolutionary. Sex Education has set itself a high bar, it will be interesting to see where the show takes us next.

 

 

Sex Education is available to watch now on Netflix. Season 2 is set to be aired in Spring 2019

*Images are not my own. Copyright: Netflix, 2019

 

Travel plans for 2019

I really intended to write this post closer to the beginning of January. But my partner surprised me by booking a trip to Iceland(!) at Christmas, so the start of this month turned out to be planned for me- and I’m not complaining.

We had the most incredible time. Visiting Iceland has been a travel goal of mine for nearly 10 years, so I’m so very grateful that I finally got there. I fully expected to be at least a little disappointed; places that you’ve built up in your imagination for nigh on a decade inevitably fall short of your expectations. Iceland did not. (More on that in the coming weeks).

After perhaps the best start I could have asked for to 2019, what’s yet to come?

More of my very own Microadventures

My last post sang the praises of the humble microadventure. Allistair Humphrey, fellow Brit, adventurer extraordinaire and inventor of the microadventure, offers a beautiful but somewhat precise definition of the term, “a realistic escape to wilderness, simplicity and the great outdoors, without the need to ski to the South Pole or go live in a cabin in Patagonia.”

I love to spend my microadventures exploring the beautiful (if soggy) English countryside but since I already live in the countryside, I also like to have urban microadventures. So January-February should be a healthy mix of urban and rural.

I’d like to pay Leeds a visit, and take a day trip to York. I’ve been sourcing some inspiration from these articles on York and this one on Leeds.

A day trip and possibly an overnight camp is also on the cards next month in the Peak District and/or Snowdonia National Park. But February will mainly be spent working, avoiding being rained on, writing and getting my hygge on with a good book and a hot cup of tea.

Ireland 

I’ll be starting off March with a family wedding in Dublin and a whirlwind trip to the West Coast to finally see the Ring of Kerry, Galway and even more family members.

I’m planning to spend a few days reacquainting myself with Dublin and then travelling over to Cork, Killarney and Dingle, before heading up to Galway for a couple of days and then finally to see my family in Mayo. It’s a pretty ambitious itinerary for the the amount of time I’ve got. I’m not entirely convinced I’ll manage it all but, damn it, I’m gonna try.

 

Italy

Here’s where this year gets really exciting: I’m moving to Italy for a few months in mid-March. I’ve chosen to stay in Bologna, where it’s still big enough to be exciting but not so big and famous that it’s utterly overrun by tourists. I’ll be taking intensive Italian classes by day and sipping montepulciano by night. (at least, that’s my idealised fantasy of what I’ll be doing. In reality, I’m sure it will be closer to eating gelato alone, by the gallon, and crying over my inability to understand irregular verbs).

I  want to get to some other cities in the north of Italy while I’m there, Ravenna, Siena and quite probably Venice, Florence and Milan (you kind of have to, don’t you?). I’d also like to see some of the more rural spots in Emilia-Romagna and Umbria, and perhaps tour a vineyard, or five.

 

France

Having mastered la dolce vita, I will move onto la vie en rose for summer in Lyon, France. Again, I’ll be taking an intensive language course but I’ll be happily filling up on bread and cheese in my spare time.

I am aiming to get a good taste of both rural and urban southern France with some trips to Provence and Bordeaux. If time and funds permit (which they most likely will not) I would also love to do some hiking in the Alps and explore the north of France. We shall soon see.

After France, I honestly have no solid plans so it gets slightly unclear after the end of summer. There could be a jaunt to the Turkish Riviera, or a trip with my partner (who is Sicilian) to Puglia and Sicily. I may come back to England and have a series of microadventures, or a big camping trip around the UK National Parks. I’m not quite sure yet, but it’s all part of the fun.

Wherever the rest of 2019 takes us, I hope it’s a year full of adventures, laughs and lessons. Sickeningly sweet sign off: complete.

What are your goals for this year? Do you have any suggestions for me? As always, please feel welcome to comment and thanks for reading!

*Thanks again to the artists at Unsplash for their beautiful photography

How to travel without killing the planet

How do you reconcile a love of travel with a love of the planet?

This is a struggle that many of us face. There’s an urge to travel to distant places, experience wild new environs, and be confronted by a totally different way of life to our own. There’s also the belief that this will change us in some profound way; in a good way. It will surely change our lives, teach us invaluable lessons that we can take into our future and ultimately help us to make something better of ourselves. 

But then the reality comes crashing in (and not just the financial reality): the environment. What does all that flying do to our carbon footprint? Even those of us with the most rudimentary knowledge of the environmental issues facing the human race today, know that flying is not exactly ‘green’.

For a breakdown of just how much damage our wanderlust can do, feel free to read up on it here, here and here.

But I promise I’m not just here to shit on your perfectly legitimate travel aspirations. It even feels a bit mean to be criticising the onset of cheap airlines, which have given more people than ever before access to foreign travel. These should be good things. 

And yet… 

I’m afraid to say, it’s not entirely possible to have it both ways. You can’t go jetting off on multiple long haul, round-the-world trips every other year (not that most of us can afford that) and expect it not to add up to a hefty carbon footprint. On the one hand, it’s valid to want to see and experience beautiful, awe-inspiring cities and landscapes, on the other, it is not valid to wreck them entirely and contribute to humanity’s eventual doom.

Again, I promise I am not here to just offer you, well, doom- doom or a life of geographical stagnancy. I swear. That wouldn’t really suit my purposes at all, being a travel writer. I am genuinely here to offer some solutions too; some possible ways of achieving your goals and satiating (for now) that proverbial wanderlust without causing quite so much damage to environment. 

This article is actually years in the making, it is an accumulation of many many hours spent researching, a curated account of the ideas and information that I have personally gained to date. It is by no means exhaustive, but I hope it can help you have an incredible adventure without all the guilt.

Microadventuring

You’ve gotta love anything with a name like that.

Maybe you’ve heard of this cutesy-sounding trend. As the name would suggest, it is a tiny adventure that you take, to somewhere not very far away and not for very long. It’s an affordable, achievable, planet-friendly idea for people who are short on money, time or tolerance for global warming.

The New York Times characterised Microadventures as “short, perspective-shifting bursts of travel closer to home”.

A little trip away, even if it’s for a night or two, or even just the day can give you the little lift to your spirits that you need. It’s hard to give suggestions on where or how to do this without knowing where exactly you live, of course, but here are a few examples that should apply to you:

If you’re a city dweller longing for the great outdoors:

Famous environmentalist John Muir once said, “the clearest way to the Universe is through a forest wilderness”.

So if you want to get to know your little slice of the Universe better, go and find somewhere with fresh air and a dark sky, somewhere you can actually see the stars. It could be the woodlands, it could be the coast, it could be anywhere you like, just as long as you get out of the urban sprawl. 

You’d be surprised how much of an effect this can have, to just restore some calm to your mind and body.

A lot of big cities have a few big parks. I’m not talking about that, I’m talking way out. There should be relatively good public transport links (all the better for the environment) to take you out of the city and into the wild expanses of nature. If not, of course, you could take your car, rent a car, or a bike and maybe camp out.

(Patronisingly obvious side-note: make sure you do your research on where it’s ok to park, camp, and generally be. Try not to trespass!)

If you want a city break:

Perhaps you still want that urban rush but with change of pace and scenery, to see somewhere different but not go full country bumpkin. (Or maybe you are a country bumpkin who’s looking for a taste of city life). That’s okay too. Chances are, there are big exciting cities within easy reach of where you live.

Again, some quick research, looking up train, bus or other public transport links to a city that intrigues you will get you started. Then simply treat it like you would treat any other holiday: take in the cityscape, go to galleries, museums, monuments and parks, try the city’s speciality food, sample their nightlife. You could do all of this in just one day, on an average weekend. Better yet, you could consider (if time and funds allow) staying the night and contributing to the city’s economy. You maybe lucky enough to make some local friends.  

 

Actually go to a different country:

This last suggestion may not count as a microadventure, depending on your circumstances…maybe I should call it a mesoadventure, in any case it’s definitely not a macroadventure. I would suggest trying this one out on a weekend, as it could require slightly more time. 

We all know the old adage “love thy neighbour”. Getting to know, even getting to understand and to love our geographical neighbours is no bad thing.  

If you’re reading this and you’re a mainland European this could be a pretty easy one for you- we have great train and bus links that can take you easily over the boarder(s) to neighbouring countries where you can have still have a microadventure but you’re challenged with a new country and perhaps a different language and different set of customs. 

If you’re British, again, this is pretty easy: Scotland, Wales, England- eliminate the one you live in and travel to one of the other two, probably whichever is closest. 

If you’re from a very large country this could be a bit more difficult, but not impossible. If you’re from the US, for example, and live near the border of Canada or Mexico, try taking a trip to see what what it’s like on the other side. Same goes for any other big country (including Canada and Mexico) same goes for pretty much anywhere in Asia, Africa, South America, if you’re near a border, try going over it! If you live in the interior of a large country, or you’re country is a huge island (hi, Australia), you could try visiting a neighbouring state/county/territory. 

Personally, I currently live in the countryside in northwest England. Here are some of my microadventures for inspiration:

• An overnight stay in Edinburgh (only 3 hours away by train)
• A day trip to Manchester 
• Glamping in Yorkshire 

 

I’m very fortunate to have such incredible cities and stunning landscapes right on my doorstep. You are probably just as fortunate. You just need to look around and explore your surroundings with a fresh perspective. Remember that someone, somewhere is desperate to be right where you are.  You can enjoy an array of amazing travel experiences and it barely has to cost you or the environment a thing. 

What are the benefits of a Microadventure?

• Much less environmental damage than your average holiday
• Way easier on the budget
• It can broaden your mind and challenge your perspective, without requiring too much (or any) time off work 
• Gets you out of your comfort zone
• Fall deeper in love with your own home and the places near your home
• Make connections with the people and places close to you 
• Contribute to making your home and its surroundings an even better place by visiting cultural and natural attractions and supporting the local economy

Long Term Travel

If you truly have your heart set on seeing very distant places, I don’t blame you. Sometimes a microadventure is not enough, sometimes you just need to go macro. And there are multiple ways of doing this whilst still taking steps to keep your carbon footprint to a minimum.

Living Abroad

Taking some time to actually live in a different part of the world is one of the best ways to have an adventure, immerse yourself in a different culture and truly get to know another place. This can come in a variety of forms; you could study abroad, do a working holiday or volunteer. (More on these options below).

Studying Abroad at University 

This is possibly one of the most valuable and productive travel experiences you can have. You get to explore and really get to know a new country and region whilst expanding your knowledge and gaining a tangible new set of skills whilst working towards your degree. 

Many people take this opportunity while at university or college. I would say, if this opportunity is presented to you, take it.

If you are reading this and you are currently applying to for higher education or are at university/college, try looking into the options available to you on your course. Most European universities, for example, participate in the Erasmus scheme, which could be your ticket to six months or a year spent in another European country, looking at your subject from a fresh new perspective whilst immersing yourself in a different culture and possibly learning a new language. While at university I knew many Erasmus students who came back from their year abroad fluent in one or even two foreign languages, and having seemed to acquire an ineffable and enviably cool pan-European flair. 

But there are plenty of global opportunities available for a range of subjects, including sciences, arts, humanities, politics, economics, the list goes on. A degree in, say, politics or human rights could be massively boosted by a year spent in Brussels or Washington D.C. A geography degree could be helped by a semester in the field studying fascinating and unique landscapes in Ethiopia or Iceland. A budding artist could spend 6 months studying classical art in Italy then the next 6 months studying the modern art scene in New York or Tokyo. The value of international experience in your field can only do good, not just for your future career but to help you grow as an individual and gain invaluable life experience. 

Do some research and come up with some ideas of what you might like to do, make an appointment at your university careers office and/or the office for study abroad and explore your options. It is also a good idea to take advantage of any scholarships or funding opportunities that may be offered to you.  

Studying Abroad Independently 

If you already graduated or simply never wanted to go to university, you’re not completely screwed. There are plenty of options to learn something new abroad.

Language Study

This is one of the obvious options that comes to mind. It’s universally useful, applicable and helpful, giving you a cultural insight to get to know your host country. 

Many universities are actually open to non-students who want to study languages, you do not have to have a degree or even be studying for one. I had a friend who I met whilst I was backpacking around Taiwan who was studying Mandarin at the National Taiwan University in Taipei, in an independent language class that the university offered. Not all universities, of course, offer this but it’s worth a quick google search to the city you’re interested in studying in, to see if their universities offer comprehensive, often very reasonably priced classes. 

Alternatively, there are plenty of language schools all over the world. Searching for a language school in the country/region/city you’re interested in going to should point you in the right direction. There are also plenty of good options on well-known sites that are constantly updating reviews such as GoOverseas and ESL Language Studies that work with well regarded institutions that the prospective students can browse through, research their options and find the course that’s right for them. 

Other Skills

Studying new skills in a foreign country can be the perfect way to combine further education with travel. Here are just some ideas that may appeal to you:

Learning to Cook

Mastering the art of creating delicious and exotic meals is not only a wonderful lens to explore a culture and country through, but is something that can equip you with skills that you can bring back into your everyday life. It could prove to benefit many aspects of your life; your health (or not), love life, social life and could even help you forge a new career path.

There is a whole world of cuisines and regional specialities to try your hand at, to name just a few:

India

Mexico

Thailand

Japan 

France 

Peru

Vietnam 

Italy 

Learning to Scuba Dive 

It’s a pretty over-quoted fact that we humans have explored more of outer space than our own oceans. There’s a whole other world beneath water’s surface, just begging to be explored. Learning to dive or even to become a dive instructor could be your ticket to that world, and (again) may even lead to an amazing new career path you never considered. 

PADI offer a range of diving qualifications in almost every region of the world where you could simultaneously learn a great new skill whilst getting to grips with a new county, culture and maybe even a new language too. 

A lot of scuba enthusiasts develop an even greater respect and love for nature and our oceans. The more they dive, the more they see and the more they learn about the importance of protecting what we have and reducing the damage already done.

 

Learning to Ski or Surf

Again, these are excellent examples of developing new skills that are fun, active, could potentially set you on a new career path for a while and give you the opportunity to live in a different country and spend your free time exploring your adopted home and the surrounding areas. 

There’s a great article on how to and why you should become a ski instructor here, and another for aspiring surf instructors here. 

Spiritual Education

This is an interesting way to gain a more in depth understanding of the country you want to explore, albeit a somewhat emotionally and spiritually intense way, at times. Many temples all over the world offer the opportunity to stay with them and learn about their beliefs (sometimes in return for voluntary services or a small fee). 

India, regarded by some as the Mother of Eastern religion, is one of the most popular and fascinating destinations to pursue a spiritual education.

Staying in ashrams, for example, is a popular way of gaining an understanding of Hindu beliefs and can be a great insight into Indian life and culture, an opportunity to meet new friends and provide you with a base from which to explore in your free time.

You could equally request to stay at a Buddhist temple in several regions across Asia, including South Korea, Thailand and, the current home of the Dalai Lama, Mcleod Ganj in northern India.  

Traditional yoga and Ayurvedic medicine courses are also popular in India, all of which can give you a greater understanding and respect for the country’s history, culture and customs. This kind of cultural awareness and knowledge can not only heighten your emotional intelligence and make you more receptive to other people and their ways of life, but is actually a quality that is sought after in the social, political and professional spheres. 

At its core, spiritual education should lead you to think in new ways and gain a wider perspective, which, after all for so many of us is the whole point of long term and long haul travel. 

Working Holidays

The feeling of travel, even when you’re working. A working holiday gives you the opportunity to explore your new home and its surroundings in your free time whilst earning and gaining work experience. The most common jobs are farm work, tourism, hospitality, office or retail. But you’re not just limited to those fields, if that isn’t what you want.

There are tonnes of options, but you will have to check what’s available to you in terms of working visas. UK and Irish citizens aged 18-30 are entitled to a work visa for up to two years in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan. 

Teaching English 

Speaking of Japan, its also a very popular country with English language teachers. If you are a native English speaker, have a degree in any discipline, and have (or are willing to do) a TEFL course, you could have an incredible experience exploring a new country as a teacher. Your options could include Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan or Vietnam (and that’s just a handful of options in Asia alone). There are TEFL jobs available worldwide, visit the British Council website for even more options in Asia, Europe and Latin America.

English teachers are often given an impressive salary and benefits, including free accommodation, a round-trip flight, bonuses and free language classes. If you’re interested in languages and getting to know new cultures, and are considering becoming a teacher it’s definitely worth looking into a TEFL course.

I met several EFL teachers whilst backpacking in East Asia, they unanimously attested to loving the experience of living in a different county and the travel opportunities it affords them. Asia is still perhaps the best market for EFL work so if you’re intrigued by East Asia and would like to get to know the region better without having to go on multiple long haul flights, it may be worth considering a job in the country you are most drawn to. You could live there, get to know it and use it as a base to explore the surrounding areas either overland or via much shorter, less environmentally damaging flights to neighbouring countries. 

Volunteering 

It shouldn’t be, but this is the only potentially dodgy item on this list. Voluntourism has become a colossal problem facing the developing world today, not just in terms of economic and emotional impact on other humans, but also on threatened animals and environments volunteers had set out to help.

In today’s world you have to be so careful and research meticulously the potential impact you could have, even with the very best of intentions. There are many comprehensive and well-researched articles on the subject, so I won’t go into too much detail. But if you want to volunteer please make sure that you are satisfied that whoever you arrange to volunteer with is doing what they say they are.

Grassroots Volunteering is a generally well-trusted resource, it was created with the sole purpose to “decommodify the volunteerism industry.” There’s a wealth of diverse opportunities, including teaching, healthcare and conservation on the website, in a range of countries across the world. 

Elephant Nature Park is another reputable project that cares for elephants and other animals in Thailand (and neighbouring countries) with the help of volunteers. It is a seemingly very positive and impactful project, headed by the famous Lek Chailert, who was honoured in 2010 as one of six Women Heroes of Global Conservation and named one of Time Magazine’s Heroes of Asia in 2005 and the Ford Foundation’s “Hero of the Planet” in 2001.

If you are passionate about animal welfare and want to learn more about conservation, Born Free also offer volunteer opportunities in countries across sub-Saharan Africa. 

You can also volunteer on various small projects globally via WWOOF and Work Away for free in exchange for your work on the project, or for a small daily fee. 

There are lots more genuinely good projects that are creating real positive change, you just have to know where to look. 

These are all meaningful and purposeful ways of travelling, despite the fact that you may not visit as many places in 6 months or a year as someone might on a RTW trip. But when you consider how much experience and value you could get from staying and getting under the skin of just one place (and the surrounding areas), I’d say it evens out. You’ve taken the time to get to know and explore one region, you’ve lived there, studied there. Plus there’s the benefit of not being quite so wracked with guilt, safe in the knowledge that you probably just have one long round-trip to make.

What are the benefits of living, working, studying or volunteering abroad?

• Better for the environment than a longterm trip with multiple stopovers
• Easier on the budget (you may even earn money)
• Gain a more profound understanding of another place and culture than if you’d simply visited for a short time
• Make deeper cross-cultural connections with the people who live there 
• Perhaps learn a new language 
• Gain valuable life experience and skills

Travel Slow 

If you truly want no more than to simply experience a full-time backpacking lifestyle, that’s absolutely fine; there are ways of cutting down your carbon footprint here too. 

A money-saving and more environmentally friendly alternative to a RTW multi-stop trip with several long haul flights, is to pick a region that calls to you and take just one flight, there and back, over-landing as you travel through the area. Limiting the amount of flights you take and travelling slowly overland via public transport such as trains and buses not only reduces costs but reduces the carbon footprint of your travels. 

 

Inspiration:

• Overlanding Sub-Saharan Africa
• Rail travel through Mainland Europe and the Nordics
• Trans-American road tripping 

If you have a bit more time on your hands and still want to travel slower and greener, you could consider starting from your home country with no flight and travelling overland to a far-off destination, then flying only once, back home. 

Inspiration:

• Taking the trans-Mongolian railway, St. Petersburg to Beijing (and possibly onto southern China)
• Busing from North America through Latin America, down to Patagonia, Argentina
• Train travel through the old Silk Road

There’s always a way to achieve travel goals whilst doing as little harm as you possibly can. Even if you live in a country that is somewhat isolated – New Zealand, for instance – you can make an adventure of it. Perhaps you could try visiting every state or territory in your country without flying?

And, of course, if you really do want or need to fly, there are ways of reducing or making up for it. The not-for-profit organisation Carbon Fund can help you to balance out the environmental impact of air travel, by calculating an amount to donate towards tackling climate change.

Remember, there’s always a solution and there’s always room for improvement. None of these methods are 100% perfect in terms of being totally green, but they could be a solution for you, a compromise, until there’s a better way.

Until next time, thank you for reading and feel free to comment and share your own experiences, thoughts and ideas in the comment section.

*Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with or sponsored by any of the organisations mentioned in this post. They have been included as examples and for information and inspiration! 

** I would also like to extend a big thanks to the incredibly talented photographers working in collaboration with Unsplash for their beautiful images

Hello, world

Hello and welcome to Weird Sisters, an online magazine run by me, Olivia, offering my unsolicited thoughts on what interests me.

Weird Sisters is for the smart modern woman (or general human) who likes to think and do things a little differently.