Skip to main content

Day: 13 March 2017

Sorry, but Emma Watson is still a feminist

That’s right, you heard it here first. In light of the absolute certified chaos that has erupted because of one (one) slightly raunchy photoshoot, Emma Watson has been under the firing line for not being a ‘true feminist’. Apparently, women with any degree of sexuality are staunchly disallowed to hold any form of intellectual debate. And God, imagine if they did. Silence her, lock her up, prevent the tit-ageddon that’s about to ensue: Emma Watson has boobs. How dare she be a feminist?

Clearly, holding this ridiculous standard for the Harry Potter star is absurd. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Nigerian novelist, famously preached that feminism and femininity should not have to be mutually exclusive. You should not have to look, dress and act more like a man to be taken seriously. Femininity is a powerful tool for accepting yourself, for learning to love and use the characteristics that make you the woman you are. Why is Emma Watson being punished for doing this? Watson has contributed a great deal to the feminist cause when she really didn’t have to (let’s not forget how she, regardless of her feminist ideals, is packing away the pounds in a Lloyds bank near you). So, here are five reasons why Emma Watson will always be a feminist — topless photoshoot or not.

Firstly, she has a degree. And not just any degree, it’s a degree from Brown University and Oxford combined. Before earning it, Emma Watson was an actress, and a famous one at that. She could have just continued in the pursuit of her acting career, but she took it upon herself to become as educated as possible, knowing that there is nothing more powerful than a knowledgeable woman. Like the rest of us, she studied hard, knowing that if a woman wants to get ahead in this world, she has got to have some resources to her name. She proved that women do not have to be compartmentalised into a single career – we can be creative and clever. A picture revealing about three inches of tit should not undermine all this hard work.

Secondly, Emma Watson helped launch the HeforShe campaign through her excellent speech at the UN Headquarters in 2014. As the UN’s Goodwill Ambassador, she preached the importance of eradicating double standards for both genders, a topic not always touched upon enough. She also attempted to dispel the myth that feminists are man-hating misandrists who aim to expel the world of all things male. No. Feminism is about equal opportunity. Feminism is about the right for anyone to express themselves free from gender prejudice. It just so happens that the damn patriarchy means that women get the brunt of this more so than men. Feminism is not about oppression, of men or anyone else, it’s empowering and it’s necessary. Emma Watson just gets that.

Thirdly, Watson has travelled intercontinentally to spread this highly important message. She has been to Uruguay, Bangladesh and Zambia (to name a few) in an attempt to try and promote the importance of girls getting a proper education. So, the next time you guffaw about the inappropriate nature of that one Vanity Fair cover shoot, answer me this: how many times have you scaled the globe in the plight for equality?

Fourthly, Emma Watson played Hermione Granger. It’s safe to say that we all know Hermione was bad-ass. She was clever, witty, motivated and (let’s face it) completely essential to the survival of Harry and Ron. They literally would have died had it not been for her Devil’s Snare knowledge/time turner/Alohomoras up and around the castle. From the tender age of twelve, Watson was proving that female characters can be fierce. But yes, of course, one picture in one magazine can undo over ten years of a feminist reputation. That makes total sense.

Finally, Emma Watson is still a feminist because she believes in gender equality. That’s it. Surprise. She fulfils the most basic principle of feminism, so I’m sorry to tell all you haters, but she’s going to make the cut. Her Vanity Fair photo was not for the benefit of men, but for her sexual exploration as an individual. Now, is it slightly ironic that she criticised Beyoncé for the sexual nature of her self-titled album just a few years ago? Yes, undeniably. But that doesn’t make her anti-feminist, it makes her a hypocrite.

It seems like all this fuss surrounding the mildly erotic nature of Watson’s cover shoot is missing a massive problem: men do not receive the same treatment. The message omitted is that women cannot expect to be both taken seriously and, at the same time, have sexual allure. I don’t recall there being this kind of discourse when topless pictures of Justin Trudeau went viral — no one accused him of being any less able to lead a country. Yet, it would seem that if a woman chooses to express her sexuality (and let’s be real, the photo wasn’t even that provocative) then all her achievements, all her previous battles for gender equality are deemed void. Double standard? Is that you knocking at the door? It seems 2017 is more than willing to let you in.

This article is sponsored by…

“Our journalists, whose business is to fib” — from A Castaway, Augusta Davies Webster, 1870

It is a stereotype that is evidentially over a hundred years old. Journalists are notorious for being the exact opposite of what they are meant to be. If the news is truth, then why are those who report it continually brandished as slanderous liars?

Well, we aren’t helping ourselves. Political journalism is one thing — in politics, everyone has their own agenda and opinion, and everyone will interpret facts as they please. Although to the general public, some journalists may come across as utterly repugnant people (and some of them probably are), having opinions doesn’t really equate to lying.

What I find to be a very modern, recent problem in journalism is ‘sponsored’ journalism. It is essentially a new form of marketing, where an individual is paid by a company to promote their product or service while making it seem like they are actually just writing an investigative or informative piece.

My problem is not necessarily with advertising — I think that companies have every right to advertise their product — it is with the pretence that all views and opinions belong to the writer, when actually the writer is just being paid to use their position in the media to market various items and services. Imagine if film and music critics stopped giving honest reviews, and instead gave the highest ratings to the production companies and artists who paid them the most. It would render true opinion completely invalid.

On multiple occasions, I’ve received emails from companies who offer money for the publication to publish their articles — always described as “professional, high-quality content” — in reality just promoting their own website or product. They use words such as “collaborate”, “well-paid” and “exciting opportunity”, as though they can’t even admit to the editors of the paper that they are actually just looking for cheaper and better alternatives to advertising. If their writing is so “high-quality”, then why pay for it to appear in a student paper? Not only this, but the marketing companies are extremely pushy, often emailing several times following up on their offers. I can see how tempting it would be to earn some quick cash by publishing their sponsored pieces, but it is a case of journalistic integrity and quality. Attending free events or receiving samples or products in return for an honest opinion is one thing, but being outright paid to publicise them is another.

There has also been a noticeable increase in this type of ‘journalism’ on a particular online student-based publication. The format of the article is usually as follows; a catchy, click-bait headline which promises some form of experience-based piece — usually seemingly unrelated to the product — which then leads onto constant references to said product, shrouded in (unconvincing) rhetoric which suggests that the product is actually great.

Sometimes these articles have only a short, vague description, promise or question (e.g. that they’ll find out what job would best suit you after graduating) followed by a link to a completely different website that is usually only vaguely linked to the original article title.

It is frustrating at best, and makes journalists and student media come across as unreliable and sketchy. The advertising is not even that well-hidden; if you are going to shamelessly promote Deliveroo in your method-journalism piece about an unrelated experience, at least make sure that you actually talk about stuff other than ordering from Deliveroo.

This being said, advertising and the press do go hand in hand. Especially in the modern world, where people are far less willing to pay for a newspaper or magazine when they can access it free online, it is more difficult than ever to make a living through writing for or running a media outlet. Ads are completely necessary, but it is dangerous for them to become entwined and indistinguishable from the written content of the publication.

If a clothing brand wishes to advertise in the form of their own advert and pay for that space in the paper or online, that is fine. The fashion writers still have their own agency and opinions, their own choice and — presumably — the desire to communicate their true feelings with the reader.

If the two are merged, then the reader has essentially gained nothing from the experience except being lied to. If anything it is lazy on the journalists’ part, and they may as well pack up and move into a career in marketing instead.

Perhaps it is my own fault for falling for the click-bait and for actually reading the car-crash television equivalents of the article world, but next time I see a How-To article about hosting a party, it would be nice if it was not just sponsored by a music production brand.

It would be nice to read something actually informative, or funny, and not just a “sponsored by Spotify”. It is not that I think the brands being advertised are bad or that their services are not good, it is just too fine a line to tread.

If journalists want to stop being known as fibbers, then we need to stop accepting money in return for opinions which are not our own.

‘Changing Stations’ music album tells story of synaesthesia

Synaesthesia is a neurological condition where a triggering of one sense also triggers another. People can experience synaesthesia differently, and scientists are still not sure exactly how many different types there are.

A common experience in those with synaesthesia is perceiving letters as colours. Daniel Liam Glyn, a Manchester composer, who has Grapheme Colour Synaesthesia, said: “I perceive musical notes and key signatures in colour along with letters, words and numbers.”
A move to London inspired Glyn to work on this project to portray his experience of London and his synaesthesia. The album, ‘Changing Stations’, was released in October 2016.

“I have composed each Underground line using the colour from the map and used the thoughts of feelings from each colour and underground journey when deciding my style for each piece.”
The songs on his album reflect different aspects of the commuter’s journey on the London tube. ‘Monday’ has the feel of constant frantic energy from the minor pulsing chords under eerie synth sounds.

‘Route C’  is a confusing amalgamation of sounds, notes and speech, reflecting the haphazard contrasts of the different stations on a line. The Northern line is represented in the song ‘Abode’, which starts as a wistful piano piece, the speed and volume ebbing and flowing, like the stop and starts of a tube train.

However, Glyn intends for his music to be seen as more than just an album. “It’s also an autobiographical story about how my brain works, the neuroscience behind my Synaesthesia and how it can invokes creativity for me to work on something musical,” he says.

“It showcases my love for London and the vast amount of diverse commuters…through the city each day. I hope to not only inspire other artists, but to also raise awareness for Synaesthesia across Manchester and all over.”

The album can be streamed on Spotify and you can find out more about the project on his website. Glyn is also on Twitter as @DanielLiamGlyn.

UoM Drugs and Alcohol Awareness Week

It’s no secret that students love a big night out, but when does two or three drinks, or the occasional line, become cause for concern? In aid of the University of Manchester’s Drugs and Alcohol Awareness Week we spoke to some people about their own experiences, ranging from one-time users, continual consumers, to recovering addicts.

In many cases, drugs and alcohol were described as taken to satisfy a craving for “curiosity”. Depending on the strength of the substance, it was agreed that they can “make going out a more intense, special and exciting experience — you feel more involved and connected to everyone around you”. For others, they give reason to relax and “unwind after a week at university doing coursework and exams”.

Few confessed to being worried about their consumption and believed that, despite occasional bad experiences, being well-informed made their intake safer. One claimed that “micro-dosing LSD actually improves my work”, while another felt that these products can often “have a positive impact on my mental health by changing me to be more positive about myself, the world and others”.

One individual however, whose first encounter with alcohol was at home around the age of fourteen, explained how such experience can spiral out of control — “I was probably the last to know I had a problem”.

“I had a high powered and stressful job and I was in a relationship with another user”, which came to an end after ten years due to addiction. “I have not had a drink or touched drugs now for many years but the consequences of my behaviour have had a lasting impact on my life, particularly from a career or financial point of view”.

Everyone agreed that drugs and alcohol consumption is a worsening problem for young people, particularly students facing a new-found “freedom from parental control”, but the ideas offered to improve the situation were very varied. While some emphasised a need for improved education, with “realistic and non-biased campaigns at school and university”, others felt that it was a lost cause: “I don’t think it would make much difference anyway — young people will always experiment and a proportion will always get into trouble for it.”

Most judged drinking alcohol as the gateway into substance abuse, as did the majority agree on the benefits of legalising all other drugs “to take away the cool-factor” and “allow quality checks and taxes while reducing crime.” In doing so, despite potential short-term spikes, “the no-doubt huge government revenue generated could be spent on treatment centres for those who do develop a problem”.

“It would make it easier for researchers to undertake trials on the impacts of drug use” and, by removing the taboo, we could move one step closer to creating a safe space “for people to speak comfortably” on the issue. After all, “drug use is a health issue — criminalisation only targets the most vulnerable and desperate people in society”. When invited to give advice to someone currently suffering from addiction, one person said “just accept you can’t handle it yourself and get help”.

For more information on the week’s events, check out the Facebook page.