Long gone are the days where the promenade along my local seafront was the place to take a nice, peaceful, gratifying stroll down by the beach, on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
Contory it is increasingly turning into a battle ground, hosting the fight between bikers and pedestrians. As you can guess, the former always wins. Be it someone only just managing to come to a halt when passing a little puppy, someone launching at 20 miles per hour just missing a little girl by an inch, or in-fact this crowd of teenagers, younger than me, making me walk on the sand. Bastards.
Could this be the only means of avoiding such conflict?
So t start with this is about the sorts which I can not tolerate. So an average cyclist can reach over 20mph on a bike, which is more than reasonable if you are going along a paved cycle lane, however I am lucky to reach 10mph. Due to preferring to ride along a footpath, I actually slow down if I spot an elderly couple, a young puppy or in-fact anybody! However these sorts of concerns clearly aren’t prevailing in ALL cyclists! Some literally will not slow down for anybody, and I am sorry but I personally regard this sort of behaviour as selfish, as it means that anybody walking on will have to put in an extremely conscious effort to avoid any dangerous collisions. Already I have noticed how so many walkers are now afraid to use the paths provided, and have been converting to the adjoining beach instead- where the dry sand is extremely difficult to walk on meanwhile you are often at risk of getting your feet soaked by the sea, if you were to walk on the wet sand. Subsequently it is only right that cyclists should have a bit more consideration for those families and alike choosing to walk rather than anything else?
Additionally, if this doesn’t yet justify my hostility to some cyclists, this might. So to start with, we are in the midst of a lockdown. It may not seem like one at the moment, however the bloody pubs are shut, and now is not the time to be hosting an enournmous party! So yeah, it is lockdown- and most certainly was 2 months ago. However this will not stop some will it? Back in March I witnessed many large groups of cyclists rapidly gliding along, and I am sure they weren’t all related to each other. But they wouldn’t avoid social distancing amongst themselves, rather they would also prevent pretty much anyone whom they passed from abiding with these guidelines. One time when someone going far too fast overtook me, I would have been surprised if he had left me two inches, let alone two metres! Now if you think I am exaggerating, I actually witnessed a cyclist passing a lady who was keeping two plastic bottles in place at either side. Now as the cyclist overtook, the water bottle sort of bumped on its side. No surprise there. But then the biker had the nerve to tell her he was all too aware of the social distancing! Although getting up too close to others when on a bike, was pretty dangerous before all of this social distancing. It definitely startled me, when that guy overtook me by merely an inch. Partly because I couldn’t even see where he was coming from; the same recurring issue with drivers…
A group of cyclists pictured back in early April, forbidding the lockdown rules
Reading this, you are probably thinking that I should have been spending this valuable finding somewhere else to walk, rather than produce this little rant. Fair enough. You probably also think I am one of these people who abhor cyclists, regardless of the circumstances. But that is not the case. Actually I am all in favour of people choosing to cycle, and I have recently been getting back into it myself. Therefore despite the behaviour of a small but overwhelming minority, you cannot make the assumption that cycling or even cyclists are bad.
For a start there are many cyclists whom only go at a high speed when they are in an appropriate area to do so, and wouldn’t dream of going so fast in public areas. Perhaps they avoid these public areas entirely. Who knows… While most cyclists are more conscientious than you may think and would slow down well in time and give others plenty of room to pass, therefore you shouldn’t have a hostile attitude towards them collectively. Also we know that cycling has a prodigious range of benefits…
Aside from the health benefits to the rider, which I am sure we are all too aware of, cyclists on average tend to ride at around 10 miles an hour, giving a little leeway depending on circumstances. Meanwhile a walker can only walk at around 3. Therefore cycling is a far faster means of commuting from place to place, and many who would be reliuictant to spend over an hour to make a journey by foot, would be more than willing to spend half an hour via bicycle. Therefore this reduces the number of cars on the road, meaning less congestion and reduced amounts of air pollution. So there is a reason why advocats of green air are so keen on us walking and cycling as opposed to travelling via car.
“9 Reasons why bike commuting is better than driving”
And while I wasn’t going to mention health, it is actually beneficial for mental health reducing anxiety and depression, by having “a relaxing effect due to uniform movement, which stabilises physical and emotional functions.”
Moreover the reduced congestion may mean that cars journey times are reduced, however anybody who has studies for the driving theory test will be all too aware that cyclists are classed as “vulnerable road users” therefore can be a real pain.
Personally I have recently got back into cycling because I find it reduces my levels of stress, helps me sleep at night and it is more enjoyable than some forms of exercise maybe due to covering a longer distance in a shorter space of time. While what may have tempted me as well, was being in the midst of this pandemic, feeling rather sceptical at the thought of using public transport while not wanting to have to relay on lifts 24/7 (though at this moment I don’t go out often). However I have witnessed the speed at which some of these cyclists go, and I genuinely think that the majority who do ride at these speeds and almost but don’t crash into things, don’t actually mean to. Rather it is accidental, and maybe they need to educate themselves a little more (fat note to myself too!). However it is very fair to say that there is a handful of them out there, generally those who are more experienced, who do not give a dam, or at least fancy themselves as being above other commuters and those who are exercising. It would be nice if all of these cyclists could realise that they were only on two wheels, rather than four (plus anything on 4 wheels wouldn’t get away with going half as fast along footpaths as some of these cyclists do). However we have got to accept that most cyclists are in-fact harmless, and that everyone has an equal right to be travelling along a particular walkway, unless of course cyclists have been forbidden.
So it has now been over two months since the UK lockdown was imposed, whereby any “non-essential” shops weren’t allowed to open, as well as entertainment facilities, cafes and resteraunts. Now many Brits are quite eager for things to reopen, because apart from anything else, we are bored.
However we know that the country is far from “virus free” yet, and there is an obvious risk to re-opening all of our shops and cafes even with strict safety and social distancing measures in place. Therefore it would be extremely dangerous and is far too soon. Just think of the unnecessary stress this could put on the NHS, when part of the purpose of the lockdown was to reduce this strain. However if we don’t shortly re-open our economy, the effect will be heavier than a few people pissed off because they cannot visit the pubs! Now if the economy was just a “thing” that didn’t really effect livelihoods and could easily spring up again, like a spring, then it wouldn’t be a concern. However this is not the case, and the longer it stays partly shut, the fewer jobs there will be when we return to “normal”. Thus there will be a drastic fall in quality of life and standard of living, as far more families are unable to afford to put food on the table. While there will be far less tax revenue, so the government won’t really be able to do much about this meaning things get worse still. Which will effect the lives of people in the future. How bad would shutting off the economy really be though? Are there not any alternatives? What may really happen in the future? One can only make a guess…
We know that the longer the economy is “shut”, the greater potential damage in the future. As businesses shut, confidence is reduced further and the fewer jobs still. This in tern means that more people become unemployed, then people can afford less which subsequently has a knock on effect on other businesses. Therefore there will be even fewer jobs and a seemingly impossible way to get the economy to recover! This in tern has an effect on the livelihoods of people in the future, as well as those who will have recently become unemployed. It may be harder than ever for someone just out of collage or university to find work. While the reduced tax revenue just means that there is less money available to spend on improving the NHS and other essential services, meaning that the lives of people will be reduced..
Huge numbers of businesses have had to shut due to the pandemic
However it is critical to look at this from both sides regarding the economy as well. Because if we are not too careful, then there could easily be a second peak.. Which will inevitably lead to a shutting off of the economy once again, as people have to repeat the end of March and April. Therefore businesses will be even vulnerable, than if it were another brief couple of weeks, before everything could begin to open again. And even if we finally managed to reduce this, imagine how frightened people would be to spend then!
Whilst if we reopen the economy too soon, there’s the question of whether people will actually be too anxious to leave the house still. Therefore this could result in businesses losing out further, if they were to pay costs to keeping them open, while barely anyone was coming in. But I feel that the public generally are ready to go back into shops, and I know for a fact that many men are literally dying for a haircut (and they moan at us, but for most of us girls, paying for the price of a haircut at this moment is out of question! ) But are we going to want to be eating in resteraunts again yet? I personally feel slightly put off, with the fear that visiting them would basically be a little strange, if all tables are so far apart from each other. It wouldn’t feel right or natural to be visiting somewhere like that. Therefore it is hard to predict how the “majority” may react to the reopening of the economy…
Café in Germany which has reopened, with rather eccentric means of social distancing
Another thought that I had, was could this be potentially a boost for small businesses? If there is a limit on how many people are allowed to go into an eating place at a time, then perhaps some regular pizza express goers may choose to go elsewhere instead, such as to their local family run pizza place. While I know that I am not going to be too keen on going into Primark or other crowded fast fashion outlets for a while, knowing that firstly they are likely to get more crowded, plus a purchase from a small firm directly benefits those who run and work in the company more. Oh, and small businesses aren’t as likely to have these one way systems, which stress me out, partly due to the effort that required from myself to follow all of the arrows, but worse still- when somebody decides that these arrows don’t apply to them! Whilst others may feel the same with the excess stress associated with following the one way systems, but people may also be reluctant to quew up to enter these shops, so may decide to pop into a smaller business which is less likely to be having miles of people quewwing up outside. Perhaps too, people may simply want to support small businesses.
Who really wants to visit when there is a crowd like this? Though I am sure that there will be social distancing measures in place!
However realistically I don’t think this will be too likely. This is because for a start people are not going to have as much money as usual plus they’re going to be very concerned about spending, therefore the last thing anyone will choose to do, is to pop into a small, but expensive shop and actually buy the equivalent to what they would choose to buy in Primark. I do however think that it may be possible that small restaurants and coffee shops may benefit, especially in more busy and prosperous areas, because it is quite likely, I think, that people will still choose to visit. And as the more mainstream restaurants and cafes fill up fast in these areas due to less capacity than previously, it will give others a chance to grow their custom, as people will flee to these if their current favourite place is filled. However sadly this is only likely to benefit the more urbanised and wealthy areas where there are jobs, where people are going to have money. And again, whether we like it or not, the closure of many highstreet shops would be tragic for jobs.
One of the many independent quaint coffee shops in England, which could potentially continue to do well after this, from at least an optimistic viewpoint
We have also seen how enabling technology has been during this shutdown, as businesses have still been able to carry on due to the power of working from home, and zoom! And even before the lockdown, many many consumers relied partially upon online clothing stores, and would choose to opt for taking an online food order to collect or to have delivered, rather than shopping out or eating in. Therefore would the fear of the closure to high-street businesses really be that tragic, and are many people actually going to lose jobs in the long term. While the demand for online shopping looks likely to further increase and compete and eventually take over high-street shops; with an over 42% increase within two years. This way do we need to worry so much about what will happen to our high-street shops, or will the normal shops or is this pandemic just speeding up what would have naturally happened anyway? Now this does suggest that really there is no rush to open up our high-treet shops, nonetheless in the short run, many people would inevitably lose jobs, at least for a while.
Online sales have surged within the last few years!
Statistics in-fact are implying that we aren’t ready to go out yet. According to a poll conducted by Ipsos, less than 30% of us would feel comfortable visiting a pub after lockdown. This therefore suggests that people are not going to feel comfortable visiting the high street, and other food outlets after this is over. Therefore regardless of views on whether these outlets should open or not, would there be any point? As the reopening of the economy, really, should correspond with the views of the British people. And if we are not comfortable with going to shops after lockdown, then what is the point in forcing many workers to return, where they are often likely to feel very unsafe? Plus if barely anyone is spending, then it may even be cheaper to have these outlets still shut for the time being. But we know just how good and fast we all are to change our minds, therefore it is quite possible there will be a surge in shoppers in the first few days of reopening them. Moreover many furlowed workers would be wanting to return to work, considering how long they have had off and because of the concern about how long the furloughing scheme may go on for. So this way, it is more of a social experiment as to how the public feel, regarding how we should open the economy; as opposed to any primary risks. Nevertheless, again this is risky in itself because we know how complacent many members are getting, and the last thing we want is the risk of a second wave. Therefore there is not one straight forward way of reopening the economy, and I suppose the best way is to do it slowly and gradually. However is the government making this move too quickly?
Yet we know how good we all are at following each other like sheep, and it is quite possible that before long, we will all be bursting to return to “normal”. Though our general response to the lockdown process has already proven that we are mostly compassionate beings, as we have avoided mass gatherings etc, therefore the temptation of visiting a McDonalds isn’t going to swing us.
The most important thing is still to weigh up the moral concerns on both sides, which in-fact is impossible to do so accurately, so really one can only make a guess. Now obviously a fast up-rise in numbers of high-street shoppers means that there could be a fast number of new cases and deaths. Hence why so many feel it is just not time, However the loss of jobs can result in long term health problems, lower qualities of life and reduced spending on welfare in the long run. Now we cannot begin to predict which one of these grim outcomes has a larger weight but It is fair to say that it is an extremely difficult, and really an impossible judgement to have to make.
My gut feeling is however, is that the government is probably right in beginning to reopen the economy at this stage. Though it needs to be done in a precautious way, which if I am honest, I feel rather sceptical about at this stage.
Now I still haven’t made my mind up, so I apologise. But it would be cool if you could comment how you feel about this all. Don’t really know what gave me the incentive to write about this, but here it is anyway…
Hiya, I am currently writing this, while stood in a quew for a shop. And no not to go in but to pay. It has become the reality now, that going to a supermarket is one of the most stressful and time Consuming things ever. Literally been here for over an hour and now have been in the queue for nearly 20 minutes, with only about 8 things in the basket. Would be much easier if we could go less often, buy hey.
So I feel I am at a bit of a strange point (once again) and really it is a massive, uncertain dilemma as to what will happen next. Because we are all moving onto our next phase of lockdown, and goodness knows how this will pan out. I also cannot believe it is June already, as the weeks just seem to have been shooting past me during this period nonetheless saying this, it seems like a crazy long time ago now since anything was anything like normal. Or even since the beginning of the lockdown period, when I was almost overwhelmed because of the sudden changes.
Most days I am fine and just kind of pushing through it. I have been getting outside a little more than I ws a few weeks ago, with the relaxation and I have been able to see one or two friends (one at a time for now!). However really, like all of us, I am quite worried and downhearted about what is going on, however I am just trying my best to focus on the little things and the positives which may come out of this. Generally speaking I haven’t been that stressed and generally I am sleeping OK, but there are always occasional times when I find all of this extremely difficult. Plus I’m sure we are all in this together!
I have had to limit myself to how much news I read though, because I know reading too much of it can be bad for us mentally, feeling really overwhelming. Therefore I aim to just catch up with it on the radio each morning, and limit myself to how much I look at online.
Now sixth form is likely to return in a couple of weeks time, where we will be in for 2 mornings a week. However this will be for a 4 weeks or so, while we are also going to have to study for our mocks. Therefore I am rather concerned about returning, knowing I have done very little over this break regarding school work, but there again, it is called a break for a reason.
I am also hoping to be able to get another part time job over the summer holidays because for the time being I haven’t been working, and I really want, and need to be saving! And although I am spending less on average to what I would be doing if it weren’t lockdown, it all adds up. However this depends on the reopening of many places, and I’m quite certain that this will be a be difficult period for anyone under 18 to find work.
I am hoping to find work as a lifeguard considering that I did do a course back in gosh, October now, but I would literally be happy doing anything. I have in fact already applied for a few places, but really I know how unlikely it is to get a job by applying to only a few places . Therefore I really need to set aside a good few hours to this, before I stand any possible chance. While realistically, I am not going to get a job before summer am I?
It is also possible driving lessons could begin soon, but I’m not too confident as it is physically I possible to be 2 metres apart from the instructor. Though saying that, by allowing groups to met and shops to reopen, reopening driving lessons doesn’t seem to make much difference… Obviously for myself I want them to restart again, before I literally forget everything that I have learned, but at the same time I just hope they restart when it is right to do so. I have begun learning theory again on this app that I actually love, as it is only a fiver, but includes literally everything you need, and has many many questions which you can repeat. Plus it tracks your progress. Hopefully too, by doing a little theory, I may be less likely to forget the practical side. Always accelerate after changing gear!
I have also been spending much more time doing blogging (rather obviously) and I am actually so glad. Even looking at a post from a couple of months ago kind of takes me back. While I feel I am finally beginning to scratch the surface of it all, if that makes sense. Though I regret not uploading as many updates as I had hoped, so I will start dedicating myself to uploading an update every couple of months or so. So during this part of the lockdown period I have also been doing more guitar practise and I have actually began to find a love for cycling. However for the time being I have been using these “beryl bikes” which are great as you can leave them in places then scrounge a lift back, but you never know how far you will have to walk before you are able to get onto one. So that is never as great. Therefore I am hoping to purchase a second hand bike, which may be slightly difficult to do considering the current demand there is for them! And that practising social distancing while trying to get a bike is actually pretty difficult. There are places that I long to travel to on bike, and I am finding that it is easier to go early in the morning rather than In the afternoon/evening where there’s more people about. Though I am sorry to say it, but some cyclists act like total nonce’s. I mean mate, you are meant to slow down for walkers, let alone the two metre rule oh and there is a little puppy right in front of you!
I also want to try and go for a ride while the sun is setting, so really I need to get something sorted regarding a bike. I think I got into cycling partly due to the situation with public transport, and otherwise not being to get around independently. Therefore it is nice to just be able to travel somewhere by bike. If I’m honest I haven’t really “taken up a new skill” or anything, as I’d personally choose to work on what I wanted to do more of previously, and sometimes we just need a little time to sit back and not worry so much and trying to juggle this, school work, and other hobbies would currently be a bit much. Although at some point I want to learn a little French, or rather refresh my memory from what I learned from year 8 lessons! Because I cannot actually speak any other language, but feel like I ought to, even if it is just to say good morning and ask for a coffee.
This last week I have been taking a break from school work generally and have been doing different things, including taking more time to focus on this blog. This weekend I aim to squeeze in a bit of revision in time for the final half term and mocks, though I didn’t get much done this morning due to that shopping trip. Finally for some reason there definitely feels like something is going to change quite soon. I’m not really sure why that is- probably just the turning of the season or relaxation if the lockdown. But thinking about this and writing I do feel rather on edge…
(Side note) I am also going to be taking a kind of “quasi break” from social media. Therefore I aim to limit my time spend on social media all throughout this month, by only allowing myself a dedicated amount of time to my Instagram @vicsonlineblog while totally forbidding Facebook and only checking any personal accounts for school purposes. Otherwise I often get quite carried away by it, and In a way i find it very addicting. As well as being a major distraction, as a few 20 minutes here and there throughout the day can easily add up… Now I hope that anyone reading this is alright, and I shall be posting again quite soon.
It’s strange isn’t it, at the moment. Here we are at a stage where some people feel that what has set out to be achieved has been done so, therefore the word “feminism” is no longer required. Whilst others think that we still have miles further to go until we have a truly equal society. On the contrary, some even stress that we have gone “too far”. Some diss these so called “radical feminists”, whom allegedly believe in too far fetched and unrealistic concepts; while others claim that these days feminists seem to be asking for more than what men have in terms of power whilst others claim that many women are acting in a demeaning fashion, partly due to what feminism has taught them. Some may think it is stupid that many women seem to now be getting enrolled into jobs that they’re not really “up to”, simply because of their gender- in order to make the company look good. Is there a distinct natural difference between men and women meaning that it would really be impossible for total equality to be achieved? Is feminism now a threat to men, as if it goes much further it will be likely to leave many men behind? Maybe to those of other genders too? Therefore I can see why many think that feminists here need to simply buckle up, for many reasons, and focus on harsher inequalities which exist today within the world…
But no! I still believe we have got further to go, and though the issues may be far more subtle now than what they were a long time ago, they are still very prominent. Plus considering how circumstances were, with women not even being able to vote just over 100 years ago, as well as shocking circumstances even just going back a couple of decades, it would be far too early to forget! In-fact we always need to remember the legacy they have left behind! Therefore you cannot ditch feminism, because of this, and believe it or not, the word has too much of a meaning behind it!
Feminism should be just as important to us now, than it has been before!
The definition of feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes” at least according to google. Now some point out that the definition is rather narrow and only accounts for equality for women during the period when it was most needed, however I think that this leaves us with strong leeway to interpret and adapt this to the problems and circumstances of our times. Because I think there is still a long way to go, before all inequalities faced by women are eroded, however it’s fair to say that those of other genders are effected immensely by certain stereotypes which can have a massively damaging effect. Therefore these following reasons explain why I am personally a feminist, and why, the advocacy of female rights and gender equality is still immensely important and relevant. The first part will be more focused on what effects women directly, but I will then focus on gender inequalities in general and why and how this can be incorporated into feminism.
Now this seems like a pretty obvious one to begin with. And although it is true that here girls get the same amounts of essential education, are equally able to attend university and have barely any limits on what career they can pursue (with the exception of….), I personally feel many girls still feel may feel afraid and reluctant to fulfil something they’d wish to. That would be because in the past almost all of those people fulfilling these positions would have been male. While still now some may, without realising, put someone off doing something because of their gender.
Just think, the UK has only had two female prime ministers, while the USA hasn’t had any female presidents! Moreover I think that many females are afraid to go into male dominated jobs, such as mechanics, electricians, lorry drivers and so on… Partially due to feeling afraid to be in a traditionally nearly all male environment, due to fears of abuse and the feeling of “not being wanted”. While it is all too easy to discourage girls to go into these fields, telling them to peruse a more female orientated career instead.
Moreover I think in general, young women would feel far less easy about doing certain things independently having been discouraged from a young age, which they’d otherwise be very willing to do. No, I am not talking about having a job, independently paying bills or even telling that guy trying to sell triple glazing, that you’re not interested. But things like travelling, setting up a business and well; being in power. A young man travelling alone seems pretty normal, however I feel that if a young woman travels alone, it is a different story. Really I cannot understand why, where we are both capable of weighing up the risks of travelling somewhere, and know not to approach grizzly bears. So why cant we be independent beings in the land of the unknown? So although we can all physically grab these opportunities, there are still many more mental obstacles that we have to overcome.
This displays illustrates the unequal opportunities faced by females and males
This obviously proves how subject we are still to sexual mistreatment, and with the percentage of males receiving this being considerably lower, it shows this is an issue particularly effecting us, which urgently needs addressing. And although a lot of sexual harassment isn’t “too serious”, being a single comment, or a light touch-this is not an excuse. It shows how we are still viewed by some as “objects” and I think that this can effect things as simple as our choices of clothing. Which leads me onto mmy next reason.
Stop Violence against women!
3. Excuses for this behaviour
I actually find it shocking that still to this day, some men will use the way we dress as a way to legitimise their disgraceful behaviour. And some may argue that if one chooses to display large areas of skin, it makes them a “slut” therefore they are “asking for” this mistreatment. But this is not at all the case. I am sure that most women or gay men would not dream of harassing a man, choosing to wear nothing but swimming trunks or shorts on a hot summers day, so why on earth do people find it ok to laugh at women who choose to show some of their legs for instance? It simply is not right. And I think that it does severely effect how many of us do choose to dress, feeling the need to be more discreet to avoid this kind of severity.
The way someone dresses certainly is not consent!
4. Unfair, unrealistic and pathetic expectations
Ok, so this indicates a wide range of issues, which could affect men and women likewise, but for now I will focus on “looks” which effect both genders. I don’t think you can blame any gender for this expectation, but it is more of a kind of constraint which is upon us, which has evolved over many years.
So for women, there is the expectation of “dressing well to suit the occasion” regardless of whether this suits you or not, the pressure upon us to wear Makeup to “improve” our appearance (as mentioned on a previous post) as well as the feeling of never having the “right” body shape, regardless. Now this is toxic for us, and is definitely more of a constraint. In recent years however, I have fortunately seen an increasing number of magazines, celebrities and Instagram influences advocating the power of natural beauty more, however generally most are still living beneath the filter. This is not only unrealistic, but is mentally and physically unhealthy and needs to be tackled in order to combat the gender constraints and pressures which we face.
However men do not have it much better, if not any better. Now I cannot speak for men so much, but I think they do face the pressure of having a certain “masculine appearance.” Just think, how many of these male models have shiny six packs, rather than appear wiry or on the larger size. While if they were to prefer to dress in a more “girly” manner, this would be strongly stigmatised. Maybe because it is their role to look like “a man” or maybe because they’re scared of having a seemingly feminine touch. Probably both, but they are definitely pressured, I think, to have this sturdy appearance.
Image displaying the horrific misjudgement regarding how people choose to dress
5. Toxic masculinity
On the topic of being muscular, this is actually a face of many underlying pressures which they face. With the feeling that they cannot express too much emotion. Now this seems just as harsh on the man, as different inequalities do on us. But what on earth is toxic masculinity? Well, according to google (what else), it is “a set of attitudes and ways of behaving stereotypically associated with or expected of men, regarded as having a negative impact on men and on society as a whole.” Unsurprisingly this “causes health problems for men in later life“, whilst those men who are perceived as “most masculine” are those who are least likely to get help. Because being able to address and be open about emotions is literally the pathway to growth, as everybody obviously experiences negative emotions, therefore why should a certain group of people, men, feel almost prohibited from doing so. I suppose this stems from the pressure to be “strong” and to be the one whom is relied upon, but nobody can be at their strongest if they aren’t addressing and healing from what they have been through. And in a perfectly equal society, this wouldn’t be the case.
This shows how severe the issue of toxic masculinity is; with such overwhelmingly high statistics for unfair presumptions and expectations
6. Limited choice in childhood behaviour
The confines of gender-hood literally begin in the cradle for many. As it is obviously up to the individual parents or carers, but generally I think that girls are definitely treated differently during upbringing compared to boys. When walking into shops which sold toys years ago, I vaguely remember all of the girly things in one area, and everything for boys was somewhere else. Which is bad for both as it implies to and shows the parent that their child may be playing with one thing more than another. Whilst many parents of young boys may not dream of letting them own a baby doll, an art set or one of those weird cooking sets while a young girl may have to put up with a poxy barbie doll, and one of these kiddies makeup kits- when they may secretly want a toy car. Now I know that recently there have been immense improvements made with this, and it is fair to say that most parents wouldn’t strictly limit their children to this extent. But I think it can still happen, almost accidentally- leading to youngsters feeling that some types of activity aren’t for them.
We unfortunately come across adverts like this all the time, limiting certain types of toys to boys and girls
7. Treatment in other countries
I decided to leave this one to last, because it is often too easy to think about how far the UK have come in tackling gender inequality. While I suppose it is a rather controversial to whether we still need to make further steps, though I definitely think that we do. We need to remember there are countries which have only very recently given women the right to vote, including Saudi Arabia. Whilst education opportunities for women in many countries is much worse, aa many have to leave school early or are unable to attend. Take Yemen and Pakistan, where “just 49% of Yemeni women and 40% of Pakistani women were literate, compared to 82% and 69% of men.” This just proves that in-spite of huge advances western countries have made, gender inequality is still a prevailing issue on many developing countries. Therefore why stop supporting the movement of feminism, when half of the countries are still left behind?
This shows that regardless of your views, gender inequality does still need tackling. But as I’m sure you are aware, there are varying extents and means of tackling this inequality.
It is also true that different feminists want different things. So I mentioned “radical feminism” earlier on, however this. While the remote and ignorant belief now days that feminists want reverse inequalities, meaning to be superior over men, does actually have its roots. This stems from Cultural feminism which “believes that the society needs a female essence or a female nature” where the qualities in women are not only unique to, but superior to those in men. Meanwhile there are other fundamental branches of feminism, being Liberal feminism who “argue that gender inequality lies in the denial of rights to women in primarily the fields of education and employment.” This has been used historically for law changes enabling “women to express their political freedom”. While Marxist Feminism argues that resulting gender inequalities are as a result of the “current system of production” within the capitalist society which we live. While Marx was, and is still looked up to as a key economist during the 19th century, whom argued for more state intervention. And Radical feminism is the belief that gender inequality is as a result of the patriarchy system whereby men tend to hold the power and women are excluded from it. This has resulted in social issues facing women like sexual violence, and that the way of the capital system favouring men, is really as a result of this. There are also many other branches of feminism, often combining other issues like race discrimination.
So where do I stand on all this? Well obviously developing countries need to become equally fair, in order that women receive perfectly equal opportunities to men. But take the UK for now. I think that girls and boys need to be encouraged to take up whatever they choose from young age. While both genders need to be relieved of pressures, regarding appearance and how they act. Being femine or masculine needs to stop being pushed around as an insult, to one prevent the fear that feminists are now pushing for reverse inequality, to prevent girls feeling inferior to men and to prevent the pressures on men, especially concerning toxic masciulinity, if they realise there’s nothing wrong with displaying “female qualities.” Now it is quite possible and likely there are genetic qualities associated with men or women, and I feel at some point more research needs to be conducted to see how far fetched this is. However this is going to be inconsistent, being more prominent in some people than others, as some women may have more of a “male brain” and vice versa. This therefore emphasises why we need to tackle stigma associated with either gender. Moreover there are different views on how to overcome inequalities in opportunity. Women definitely need to be taught overtime that they are equally capable to men with persisting with what they want, and it is possible some men may be more willing to engage in these activities compared to us. But this should not put women off from persisting with something they want to do. And likewise men, if they want to engage in an activity which is more female dominated. It is ok for the time being for workplaces to aim specifically to include more women, if this encourages more women to come in the future and improve the standard of the workforce.
I think it is most important to work toward complete equality between all genders, so that nobody is afraid to receive any sort of mistreatment because of their gender. Even though there may be a general trend of differences in patterns of behaviour concerning gender, no one should feel constrained because of this. While we all need to work together to erode the stigma and stereotypes regarding any gender, in order for everyone to feel confident in their gender, and for there to truly be no inequalities in time.
We have been on lockdown for ten weeks now. Ten whole weeks! And from day to day, we are having to relay upon the government to enforce the right rules at the right times to maximise the country’s wellbeing and safety.
As Boris Johnson keeps saying, almost every single one of us has been making enormous sacrifices in order to hopefully reduce the spread. Therefore showing respect for what the government have been telling us to do, but more so, acting under our own initiative, as we now know how dangerous this virus is, and we want to protect people as much as we can. But in these last few weeks, I have been sensing a growing feeling of complacency. Partly I guess due to the prolonged lockdown period we have experienced but also because of the unclear, unconcise guidelines and messages from the government. Therefore this will lead to a lose in respect for the lockdown restrictions with a loss of certainty about whether anybody knows best. However for many of us, I reckon the finding out that the governments senior advisor, Dominic Cummings, travelled 250 miles to visit parents would have been the last straw! While the rest of us have not been able to see any parents, grandparents or close friends living out of the home. Even if we are clear of the virus, and we only live a few miles away.
So what is known to have happened is that Cummings made the 250 mile journey to Durham from London and back twice. This was to “ensure his young child could be properly cared for while his sister and niece had been volunteered to help so he went to but separate from his extended family in case his help was needed” according to a Downing Street spokesman. Cummings was also expected to have visited his parents, while made a 30 mile journey to the beauty spot, Barnard Castle: due to wanting to check that his eyesight would be ok for when he was due to return to work. Hmm, not good considering he had already driven 250 miles at that point…
It’s a beautiful castle, isn’t it….. (source, extra.ie)
So to start, as has been made so clear to us, travelling a large distance poises a large threat to others, with the risk of picking up and spreading the virus. However if this is not bad enough, Cummings also made this Journey when he was actually suffering with the virus. Now apart from anything else, this would have been losing a huge threat to his parents. As even if they were not catagorised as “vulnerable”, we know that anybody can potentially become seriously ill from this. Therefore if he really did care for and love his parents, you would think that he could have at least waited until he was clear from this. But hey. However what’s more is that 250 miles is a Considerably long way to travel. Thinking that this would take about 5 hours, if not more, I know that I would have had to have made at least one toilet stop in that time. Which is another threat… Just think of the number of people he could have put at risk, by using the loo. Which most of these would have been key workers! Therefore he he is, acting in a way in which is a huge threat to others. No doubt about it.
So as well as himself directly putting so many at risk, he has in-acted complete hipocrasy. By acting against what the strict rules for the public to follow, and as being a chief government advisor, it is quite rightly going to cause outrage amongst the public. As like many feel, it is completely unfair that it is one rule for them and another rule for us. Author of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling said in a tweet that “one of the architects of the rules keeping those people housebound, drove across the UK knowing he had the virus. Indefensible hypocrisy and selfishness”. In my eyes she is right, as it should be most important that those involved in making rules which others are legally obliged to follow, stick to these themselves. It is completely unjust for any government associate to think that they are above the law! And it is bound to leave a scar in the public’s trust, respect and confidence in the government.
As well as the potential direct danger that Cummings has caused while making these journeys, it is also very likely to cause the public to further question their efforts to abide with the lockdown rules and regulations. As it is likely many will be more likely to make more day trips to the beach, visit more family members and start hanging out in larger groups. Considering that since then, the lockdown rules have already been relaxed, further relaxations are in view and that more of us are getting complacent. I begin to question whether it is worth putting in so much effort myself, though to be fair I am not actually hugely surprised. We do know another minister was seen breaking these guidelines (though she did resign) therefore I have got a feeling that there are many more of these cases which we do not know about. Therefore many will think to themselves, that if the government won’t follow these rules, then why should they? This means that there might be more gatherings of people, thus an increased risk of the virus spreading- which could have all been avoided if the government hadn’t presumed that they were above the law.
In-spite of all the spitting anger and disappointment in the government, in which many will feel, I personally think that it is still important to continue to strongly consider the consequences of our own actions. As although not all rule makers, can act: well, responsibly; we need to remember that the aim of these measures are to protect others. As although it is most ideal if there is a body whom we can relay upon to follow actions, and not act in a patronising and a manipulative way; we know more about certain risks therefore it is still our responsibility to do our best to protect one another.
Additionally the Prime Minister has not acted in the way many members of the public have hoped and expected. Johnson stated that Cummings had “no alternative” to maake these journeys because of the childcare situation. Yet this can easily be seen through, because if any member of the public were to have been using this as an excuse, they may well not have gotten off so lightly. What’s more, common sense tells us that it would have been easy for Cummings to find alternative child-care, with many willing child minders etc during this time. While many ordinary members of the public may have struggled with this due to financial circumstances.This means that any remaining confidence in the government is likely to have been eroded, proving that the government has no concern for any wrongdoings within themselves.
The Prime Minister so far has made no efforts to sack Cummings or to state that he was acting unlawfully (source, the Nation)
Also this issue is bound to dominate Parliament rather than any effective scrutiny. This would have enabled crucial policies to be made, to ensure fewer future sufferings and could have focused on a way to gradually bring the UK back, as safely and coherently as possible. But no, instead Parliament will be bombarded with arguing over whether Cummings should go. Moreover most of us know about the reopening of shops on the 15th, and it seems to me this is just a cheeky way of distracting us, considering that this was announced almost immediately the public found out about Cummings. This way, it is just a manipulative way to retain public support by acting in what they think most of us would be in favour in, to balance out what was particularly unpopular.
So then, should the public be expected to carry on following government advise in the present and in the future, when the government and associates cannot stick to it themselves? Well, it is a complicated answer, but the last thing we should do is begin to break these rules, just for this very reason. Because we know why it is important to continue to practise social distancing and why it is important to avoid mass gatherings, and we know that other laws are mainly in place to protect others. Therefore by obeying many laws, we aren’t just abiding with what we have been told to do, but we are acting in our own interest. However- this may be controversial, but I think that occasionally it may be required that we weigh up the pros and cons of acting against the law. Meaning that in this situation if we have grandparents who we have not seen in months, or friends and relatives who we may be struggling a lot with mental health during this period and social contact may improve this, then it may be important to consider the risks to those you are concerned about, as well as any other risk. Especially considering the prolonged period we have now had… But at the same time, we need to continue to think about what the law is doing to protect us, and act accordingly- unless by doing this it seemingly poses a bigger risk to someone you’re close to. But still is the law, and usually, here, it is on the right lines. And although I think there may be circumstances where I think it is morally correct to twist the law, I also think that there are many situations where we need to take the law further to protect others. For instance, for now, take washing hands. As silly as it sounds, there is no actual law stating that we must do this, but anyone should be able to see that doing this protects others. Likewise we are entitled to unlimited outdoor time now but we still need to be cautious to where we go to. If there is a beach and it looks crowded, although you may not be breaking any law now by sitting on it, it is a case of considering whether finding a less crowded area may be putting fewer at risk. Therefore whenever we can, we need to act accordingly and do what we can to protect and respect others.
Regardless of what anyone involved in making the law might be doing. And though I am likely to be visiting shops as soon as they open once again, I am not going to be visiting Primark or any of the large shops which get very busy for a good while. Instead I am likely to visit small shops which are likely to be pretty easy to social distance in, considering how many were struggling beforehand.
I do not condone the actions of Cummings, as I regard them as unnecessary, dangerous and hypocritical. And I believe that anybody who contributes in the making legislation, has a particular responsibility not to break it.
It seems to be a hot topic among many parents at the moment, about whether 5-11 year olds should be returning to schools or not. With many parents stressing that at the moment; it would be an unsafe and unnatural environment. Just looking at the picture of the children in France, separated off by the chalk boxes, tells us that the issues of sending children back could be greater than those associated with not sending them back. While some teacher unions are kicking off as well, stressing the importance of the safety of the children. Contorary to this, many others are saying that it is more unatural for children to be “stuck at home” for all of this time, and that it simply exaggerates the privilige that the more wealthy children have, and the disadvantage of the unwealthy children. And I feel a little in awe, feeling as if I am almost going adrift, being unable to think straight and form an opinion about the situation myself.
Primary school seems like such a distant memory for all of us, but thinking about this, it had only been about 6 years since I was attending. And while I am still in full time education, I feel that I ought to get a grasp on this. As to start with, there were some aspects to school which I admitidly sort of enjoyed back then. Plus although I didn’t learn very much, being realistic the small amount of what I did learn was important to me, and I still carry it with me today. Not to mention the countlesss hours running around in the “school’s plaayground” especially on a hot summer’s day. But this is not about fun in the fields, this is a serious pending issue, and if the wrong decision was to be made, it could cost lives. AlthoughI cannot imagaine what life would have been like at Primary school, if I were to have missed 6 months of a few months ago I would have been unable to imagaine what it would have been like to have to learn A levels from at home. But beingg over two months now, I am surviving and managing to get along ok. Which I am sure is the case with most primary children and families. But then again, I am aware that a number of people in my situation are struggling, as I am sure many primary aged children and families are too, and young children have far more energy to burnn than I do! Hence why some feel it is so important that they can be getting back to school. And what with country parks reopening near me, as-well as being allowed to meet up with one friend at a time, many would reckon that a little more social contact within primary school (which some say is more essential than a trip to see the duck-pond) would be harmless… But we know that is not the case, as it is much harder to control children when there are far more of them than adults, which is less likely to occur on a family outing! Therefore we need to look at the whole picture; trying to ensure essential safety, so that is no one is hurt while the best is done to maximise the welfare of these children. This way, to me it seems that a compromise needs to be made, between rather than with either of the extremes…
Many young children may be raring to return, but that does not mean it would be safe (source, Mathematics Mastery)
Firstly some will obviously stress the fact that it is next to impossible to keep children two metres apart from one another. And that’s precisely correct! During my time at Primary school, I suspect that I would have refused to stay 2 metres apart from friends, unless if there had been strong persuasion otherwise. Especially in the older years, as we become more rebellious. But I expect that I would have been more than happy to stick well away from those who I disliked, and I suppose with being fully informed and knowing that I could face seemingly severe punishments if I flounder these rules, I would have been capable with sticking in a small group. But that does not mean every individual student may be able to do this… Really it’s unpredictable how everyone would react. However at the same time, two and two can now meet in public, technically two metres apart but does that always happen? Therefore the opening of Primary school would result in the risk of the equilivent to a “mass gathering”. This way, the reopening of schools would be catastrophic…
Perhaps young children should be told to stick in small groups, rather than alone or all together. (source, South Wales Argus)
Aswell, from this the issue of toy sharing arises. It is almost impossible that children would keep a toy to themselves until it is deeply cleaned, and it would be impossible that they would be able to keep their own to themselves. What’s more, it is a complete contradiction to what young children are always told to do; to share with others! As sharing needs to be taught, as they need to learn behaviours which basically benefit society. Yet at their young age, they proably don’t understand that further than from their own perspective; more toys for less. Likewise they won’t understand all of the circumstances and changes that are taking place- so won’t know how and why they should adapt their behaviour accordingly.
Just imagine children having to keep hold of their own bricks all the time! (source, Lawn Primary School)
And while schools have been off, our country has been embarking on a 9 week long lesson so far, about the spreading of viruses and how to prevent the spread. Such as washing hands frequently after touching anything, washing hands before you eat and keeping your bloody distance from those who may have a virus themselves. Notorioiusly it’s known that young children are chief germ spreaders, and although we can try to teach them to practise hygine and social distancing, these are young children and putting all of our trust into this would be an enormous risk. Just like other risks taken prior to the lockdown… Therefore surly we should learn that it would be too soon to send them back!
A simple two metre rule, which may be very difficult to ensure that young children will follow. (source, Shutterstock)
It would be, of things were this simple. However hearing on the radio about how children from the poorest of families receive less than 4 hours of home school education, while those from wealthier families receive nearly 6, it seems to enhance the inequality of opportunity young children face. While it is fair to say that those from wealthier families probably receive education of a higher quality, while ones from poorest homes don’t. While again, this figure is just an estimate, and I would imagine that there are some young children barely getting anything at all. Therefore although at this stage it is not a case of whether they will pass or fail any important exam, it would simply be unfair if a few people had such huge gaps in such important skills and knowledge which is taught at such a young age. And inevitably this leads to them being less advanced as they age. So some of these gaps need to be filled…
Some children have more support than others when studying at home. (source, PBS)
The social side for these young children looks pretty grim too. Children may live at home with siblings, or considering how the relaxations are going, it may be soon that families are allowed to merge. Leading to children choosing being able to see cousins and other young relatives. With it being rather likely that more and more families will start doing this, if the law doesn’t begin to allow this. While others may have large gardens theye are able to run around in, and be able to spend as much time outside as they like.. Nevertheless some children are in households where there’s no children at all, meaning they would have very limited social contact. And we know that many young children are cooped up in small flats, where there is no form of garden space- being around one in eight (ons.gov.uk). While many of these would be homes where parents may be frequently be at work, so less likely to take their children out to either meet friends or just get a little space outdoors. So once again some young children are able to have some social contact and time outdoors while others get barely any. Which are both fundamental to a childs development, and 6 months without either of these could really put the child at disadvantage. And though the summer holidays are creeping up on us, iunfortunatly many young children don’t get to go out very frequently meaning they are yett again stuck indoors by themselves… Therefore these children would proably apprecriate any form of social contant and time outdoors, even if it means being in the grounds of “school” in very strange circumstances.
Spending lockdown without a garden is a reality faced by many of us! (source, itv.com)
Judging from this, it seems like something inbetween would be most ideal, where we can focus on the wellbeing on those who are losing out most due to not being at school, while still being extrememly mindful on how to reduce the spread of the virus. And really, that would be impossible to achieve if the whole school was back at once. From what the government has said about bringing back schools, there seemed to be little clarity. Though we do know that there’s been plans to return those in Reception, year one and year 6 have been outlined with classes containing no more than 15 pupils at a time, there is still no detail about how and when this will happen. Although these pupils are due to return on the 1st of June, at the earliest. Therefore I am sure many teachers, parents and children feel rather out in the blue about firstly what may happen, and secondly about whether there would be sufficient evidence and procedures to ensure it is safe.
Already many parents (and unions) have been kicking up about these plans. But it looks like parents quite rightly will not be fined for not sending their children back. However this is unlikely to stop some from feeling obliged to send them anyway, and even those who choose not to, would be likely to feel strong concern for those children, families and teachers who are effected by this. Moreover it would increase that risk of the virus spreading further and increase confusion amongst young children. Just imagaine a five year old trying to make sense of the “stay alert” message while at school when most of those who are more mature including myself, are struggling to get to grips with what this exactly implies. Not to mention the government and the “special advisors” themselves!
It is a very complicated situation, and it is still true that the fewer children there are in schools, the better. While we need to acknowledge that everyone’s situation is different, and it would be simply unfair to send a child back to school, if they had vulnerable household members. However in my eyes it is only right that those who are in households where they cannot play much, and their household members don’t get much time to educate them, should at least have the opportunity to do a bit of catchup and have a bit of essential time outside. Now you may think that this would be too risky, but really if a fifth of the school could come in for one day of a week, so one or two year groups per day depending on the size, then the spacing out wouldn’t be too much of an issue. Teaching wouldn’t necessarily have to take place in classrooms either, considering many primary schools have good amounts of outdoor space. The only issue would be at “playtime” where children would usually run around like mad, probably bumping into one another. Yet with less than a 5th of the school, dominating the same amount of outdoor space, with children limited in clusters, then hopefully this would not be too much of an issue. With enough space to spread out small friendship groups.
Moreover, thinking about it, those children of key-workers are already attending school. And if they weren’t it would mean in many cases no childcare. And as more and more are being “actively encouraged” to return to work, the last thing we want is an issue of who is going to take care of the children, so maybe these too could be allowed to attend each day if there are issues of childcare. Therefore anyone children in a household where child-care would be an issue, would be able to come into school any day, just like those children of keyworkers, whilst every family would have the choice upon themselves to send their child to school, for a day each week (or even just a morning). And in a way it is a steady move from having very few in schools, to hopefully more normal conditions once again at the start off the academic year in September. Knowing all scenarios have potential consequences, it is just my gut feeling that opening schools up allowing just a few more children in per school day, would be the best way at going at things. This way, I feel that at least there could be some good, well-focused catch up on anything fundamental they have missed, which would especially benefit the more deprivileged. Meanwhile it is only fair that any child can have SOME outdoor time, even if it were to be very limited. Though this does not look like quite the plan of the government’s, with only planning to send back 3 of the 7 year groups, arguably being the most important. Although obviously the situation is changing all of the time, and all I can only really hope is that the closure of schools will effect the inequalities of opportunity between the rich and the poor as little as possible. Meanwhile the reopening of schools can be done in a safe and cautious way, without the chalk scenario being necessary…
This may be a “new normal” in Primary schools, as Boris Johnson has confirmed that Primary schools will be returning on the 1st of June)
~ Please let me know in the comments what you think?
Ok, so once upon a time I remember when I would almost wear makeup religiously. I would almost literally apply it each and every day, trying to make sure to cover all of my blemishes over, enhance the way my eyes looked, whilst trying my best to make sure my eyebrows did not look like part of a jungle. And then, there came a point when I thought to myself, why on earth am I using up all this time just to cover a few marks on my face and make myself look a little older, when really I look fine just as I am. Plus looks should not matter anyway should they? Even if you are a shy, plain, fairly boring 15 year old girl. So then from time to time I thought I decided to go a day or two without wearing any. And to start with, I thought I looked far less attractive and almost rough. Nonetheless I would persist through the day. And really I didn’t know why it was such a biggie. Like I was still the same person, still as intelligent/unintelligent as I would have been wearing. And still capable of growing as a person, improving in character, persistence, knowledge and all of these other important factors. So surly looks shouldn’t be considered as important? And surly It would not be the end of the world if I was to not put in 15 minutes of effort each day, just to look a certain way…
In that way it was a sense of self care, by not bothering to wear it and realising that I didn’t need to disguise or hide myself. Plus it gave my skin and eyes a break, as we all know that too much concealer/foundation can actually be harmful for the skin and cause more spots than what they hide, while when too much eye makeup finds its way INTO the eyes, it bloody hurts. And I am no skin or eye care specialist by all means, but I can tell you that by experience. Learning the hard way.
But being 17 now, funnily enough, the sense of not wearing makeup for self care purposes, has reversed to a sense of wearing it for self care. Because I got to the stage where it felt almost meaningless, like what is the point of putting all of this on when I can spend an extra 10 minutes in bed, doing work, tidying up or whatever. As I grew to care less and less about what those passers by who wouldn’t remotely know you would think, while I knew that anyone to judge me for not wearing it, in a negative way, was either ignorant or deep down- incredibly insecure. And it is SO MUCH EFFORT. Plus the expenditure.
Anybody else? (source, sayingimages.com)
Personally, it seems like good news that there’s a seemingly increasing number of people with the similar attitude, of knowing “they don’t really need it.” Because they don’t. None of you do! While asking around, I have heard similar views. Saying that they “feel judged” for not wearing it, and they kind of feel inferior to the group which they are in who may be choosing to do so. While also wanting to break this mould, and not stick to these confines, even though it may be difficult. As-well there is the superficial feeling that those wearing it may be looked at in a better way, when the reality is, is that people actually find you more attractive without it on. Strange really isn’t it. Are people feeling better about themselves for wearing this as they still think they are “ugly” without it, are they wanting to hide part of themselves or are they actually putting it on for themselves. Well, whatever the answer to that may be, it goes to show that natural beauty will not go away and may be most important to people (especially those whom fancy one another), rather than how one goes about “making themselves up. And in my opinion, everybody has natural beauty, each individually unique, but equal in amounts. And this is on the inside and the outside. So in this case, why would someone want to use makeup, just to undermine this?
This is what natural beauty looks like, in some cases 🙂
Occasionally even I like to experiment a little and wear a little from time to time. Perhaps at the weekend, to feel like I am putting a little effort into my appearance, and to myself. A bit like changing up your wardrobe. Plus imagine something like Notting Hill or Pride, without some choosing to put glitter all over their faces (not like I’ve ever been to Notting Hill, but that’s not really the point). Therefore it is cool to wear it once in a while. And whatever your opinion is in these styles, people who do dress fancy for these things, wouldn’t dress like that every day. Or they probably wouldn’t be doing it to “hook someone up”. But instead it is as a means of art and expression, quite frankly to an event celebrating…art and expression.
Festival goer at Notting Hill, seemingly enjoying herself!
And adjacient to the view that no one should feel like they have to wear it, no one either should be made to feel they MUST NOT wear it. Regardlesss or age, occupation, ethnicity or gender!
And thinking about it this way, it is a real shame that some people who may not necessarily actually want to wear it every day, feel they must do so; while people who would like to experiment with it from time to time, may feel it is not socailly acceptable.
Now I feel that many may use makeup, almost as a mask. As this helps them possibly hide the real version of themselves, or make them feel better about how they look and who they are. Which I feel is a real shame. With many there is a feeling of “not feeling dressed” without wearing this. Which I can understand, but it is extremely sad really. As that should never be the primary purpose of it!
So why has this become so aperient? Since the age of 11 really, I have seen numerous pictures of people (mainly online) wearing this, as well as adverts. While this subject became quite a big one at schools (especially being at an “all girls school”) as many would use this to look far “older” and “more appealing”, especially in photographs they would share. And I am not saying this in a demeaning way- like suggesting they looked better or worse in the photo or in real life. But it is fair to say that a number of people choosing to look “different” in photographs, do it because they feel like it makes them feel better about themselves, or they think that it is what others want to see. It is a way of fitting in really… Even I subconsciously do it, as with more of my photographs online, I will apply makeup thinking that it makes me look more acceptable and appealing, while I am slightly nervous to post a picture without it…. But this is only a recent example.
For years back these glossy magazines featuring models with goodness knows what done to “improve their experience”, both manually and on a machine- just to make themselves look this “certain way”. Not to mention all of these frivolous adverts which can be found inside these mags, featuring all these wonderful beauty products which allegedly “work miracles”. Unfortunately I think too much of this penetrates into the minds of young teenagers making them feel obliged to put considerable effort into improving how they look somehow, and again it is like the “in thing” which needs to be done if they want to fit in.
Perfect example I think of a makeup advert which has gone a little too far, in expressing the use of makeup as a way of hiding parts of yourself rather than for self expression (source, This is Money)
However I don’t think makeup is unnecessary. It can be fun Therefore those who choose to wear it, being once a month or every single day, aren’t necessarily shallow, self obsessed or even insecure. Just think of all the cool, fun products out and available to people. For example, think of tall the varying eyeshadow pallets which are available to us; from many themed around “unicorns” (guilty), those inspired by a chocolate bar (also guilty) and that really glittery one in Primark that amazingly I have never brought! Yeah, I know I am not exactly an expert on this, but what I am saying is that purchasing and experimenting with makeup can be enjoyable! And there is proof of that too, the vast number of tutorials out there, which attract me not because the person goes from “ugly to pretty”, bloody hell no! They’re equally beautiful before and after but what I am inspired by is the cool eyeshadow or other means of makeup on their face. Plus I find these spring, summer and autumn tutorials pretty cute, where colour pallets relating to the season are experimented with. Therefore using “beauty” products to alter your appearance, certainly does not have to be for a bad reason. But instead it should be as a hobby or art. As in this way it can simply be used as a pass time, or a s a means of expressing oneself.
Ok, you might say I’m too old to wear this, and this should be confined to 14 year olds, but I would disagree. (source, glamierre.com)
While an actual survey by Harris poll showed that more women now wear makeup for themselves than for any other reason: with 48% saying they wear it for themselves while 44% wear it to hide “flaws”. While there may not be that big difference, it proves that many people aren’t just using this due to pressure or insecurity. I think it is possible too that the number of people doing it for themselves may be slowly rising and those who do it to hide flaws may be slowly lowering. Partly because of our (usually) busy lifestyles as well as how greater gender equality here, has given women greater opportunities, making us realise that our fulfilment of life is not constrained to looking a certain way. While as well as all of these “makeup giros” we see online, there are many empowering women, who encourage us to be ourselves. Which may persuade us to realise that we do not have to wear it, but if we enjoy it and it is a way of taking care (like a hot bath) then we should go ahead! And considering this, like mentioned before, why on earth should the use of makeup be prohibited by anyone of any age? It simply doesn’t make sense.
But that prevailing question off being “socially acceptable” comes up doesn’t it? That because it has always been advertised as something young women “could” and possibly “should” wear, why on earth should those of different ages or genders be allowed to pursue it as a hobby?
It hurts me to think that once you get to a certain age, it is far less acceptable to be so expressive. Like if you were to bump into someone sporting neon pink eyeshadow, who looked like they were in their 80s, most likely you would make an assumption, of this being a bit odd. Honestly though, I’d probably feel a little shocked at first, mainly because I don’t see enough of it. And why would that be? I guess that when many people get to a certain age, they feel they are no longer “pretty enough” to be putting considerable effort into their apperience, they simply cannot be bothered anymore (more than fair enough!), or unfortunatly feel that it would draw far too much attention to themselves- from people like me, who may look and be rather surprised, to those who without thinking would just splatter a load of nasty comments!
Coming to think of it, I only know of one “elderly” instergram fashion influencer, who sports exgentric outfits and occasionally crazy makeup styles. Having been “stealing (her) man since 1928” (instergram bio) as she seems to wear clothing which seems to be “increasingly out there”, it seems as if she is aiming to encourage other models and people out there who may be “getting on a bit” to carry on dressing how they would choose, rather than feel bounded by age or other factors. Stating herself that her age as being a problem has “never crossed her mind” and instead she “just keeps on going”, she is certainly doing her bit to prove that age really should not matter when it comes to how you look and dresss. Adding to this, she feels you should “live and let live” saying that she thinks “we only have one judge in the world” and she say “he is ok with her dressing selections”. And I don’t know what you think, but she most certainly has a point. Really it seems completely meaningless that people should be bound by certain physical factors; which would stop them dressing in a certain way. So why should the same apply to makeup, as simply a means of expression. As I get the vibe that some hold the view that you can be pretty when you are young, however the usage of makeup is kind of essential in order to enhance the “good” features and conceal the “bad” features, then when you reach a certain age, there is no longer any point because the “bad” features have become all a bit too much. Obviously I think that view is completely outdated and simply inaccurate- but really I feel most off us contain this…
One of many of “Baddie Winkle’s” Instagram posts (source, Pinterest)
And one more ramble before I sum this off, is about gender. People may laugh, shallowly thinking that “oh this is a girls thing only” and that “boys should never get involved in this”. While demeaning our generations boys and men, for “messing about with makeup” rather than playing with toy guns. But thinking of it, males should feel that they are allowed to experiment it for enjoyment reasons, as much as females. And no, that isn’t saying that all males should be obliged to be using it, just like females shouldn’t. Nonetheless, if anyone of any gender wants to pursue this as a hobby, why on earth should they not? Like no activity should be limited for certain ages, or genders. Simple. And although we may not be used to it, really we should get used to it. As it is simply unfair and unjust. At the end of the day, if we really want the usage of makeup as to be a means of enjoyment and self care, than it should be available to everybody! Simple as.
Can I also comment on the colour of the hair, I love it. (source, Boyswearmakeuptoo, odyssey)
So I think that the positive aspect of makeup does outweigh the negative aspect, and potentially the negative side/aspect to this could and should be elimited. I think it is a real shame though, how if anything, girls are feeling pressured to wear it from a younger age. However I feel that as we get older, it is easier for us to realise that we do not need to hide ourselves by using this- as we are intelligent beings who are capable of doing so much, and none of this requires the usage of makeup for us to be able to do it.. While I think that makeup will always be a biggie on the market; because like with clothing, people do want to be free to experiment with it. Whether that is as a form of self care, a means of self expression or simply as a pass time. Thinking about this further, I think that obviously the pressure to wear it is still aperient, especially with the youngest- but this is partly to do with peer pressure. While as we age, we realise that no! We don’t need to look a certain way to fit in; as we are so busy from day to day and we have worthy ambitions which are worth more time rather than the time we could spend putting a dash of makeup on, just to fit in.
Finally I do hope that the future of makeup will be used for these positive reasons, being as a means of self care and enjoyment; as opposed to purposely suppressing our natural beauty. I hope as well that one day makeup will not have a face, instead that anybody of any age can use it, and feel free to use it! As currently it seems ridiculous that it is limited to one particular group of people, for rather grim, frivolous and traditional reason that we are naturally best looking so we should put the most effort in. Now considering the current circumstances of the world, I could be really pessimistic. But I want to end on an optimistic note. In which I hope that this, and the next generation are the generations who leave this silly stereotype behind. Realising that we are all equally worthy, therefore no one should feel pressured to hide their natural beauty, while the enjoyment some get out of expressing ourselves this way should not be kept to one group of people.
Whatever your view may be on the use of makeup, always remember how valuable inner beauty is! (source, vollanza.com)
A global pandemic is the worst thing ever for most of us Brits. Regardlesss of where we work, how old we are or where abouts in the UK we live. As we have happened to be the 2nd most hard hit (at least according to official statistics), only behind the USA, whom have a much larger and less dense population. Without even a lockdown in some areas…
However there are maybe a couple of odd workers there and about who are not having such a bad time. Such as those working in construction. Obviously they would be extremely worried, and would be having to take precautions the best they can, to reduce the scale of the immense risk they are putting themselves at. Nevertheless they’re far less exposed compared to other front line workers like obviously healthcare, not to mention those who work in shops and some teachers for that matter… And I expect that many of them are grateful that their job is still needed.
Meanwhile many working in the information technology industry may be still be receiving pay, due to being able to work from home. And this is a positive, for them (duh), and really for us too.
None the less, when you pick the right branch off from each industry, and place them into a saucepan, immense danger may boil. Now you may be thinking, what on earth is she on about. But in these last few weeks, around the UK construction workers have been putting up these 5G masts.
And because of this, many concerns have arisen- leading to people going to extreme measures to protest…. Such as burning these down, and taking to the streets…
So to start with, what actually is everyone’s problem with 5G? Whilst some are worried about the health and environmental impact, some about security reasons while others think it may cause coronavirus.
Will 5G shine a light onto our world, or be a threat to Human Civilisation (source, Forbes)
But before I begin stating some of the main concerns, I shall quote some really fascinating facts and figures about 5G. All of which I understand extremely well, and I could go on a lot longer; providing you with immense amounts of background knowledge… Yeah, but I am sure that I am not the only one who has (or had) little, if any understanding about how these things work. However I feel just a bit of background information may just help us (and me) understand why some are so against 5G, while others believe this will work wonders.
First, 5G will “be the first G introduced in the market with +100% penetration” meaning it will be around everyone, anywhere you go (source, Elenaneira.com). It will support “100x more devices” with “1000x the date volume” (source, marketscale.com). This however means that the frequency of radiation will be 10x greater than the frequency of 4G. Nonetheless this doesn’t seem like a threat, as this would sit between the weaker radio-waves and the stronger micro-waves along the electromagnetic spectrum. And whilst 4G is much weaker, microwaves, and in-act the much stronger visible light plus radiation emitted from a TV control are still non-ionising. But the increased frequency of the radiation does explain the arising of many new masts going up, as the distance between previous is not a satisfactory amount and wouldn’t be able to come with transmitting these greater frequencies. And one more cool fact is that somehow the radiation from 5G will travel in a specific direction to reach exactly what it needs to reach, rather than “going all over the place” like 4G, and to make this more efficient many of these old useless masts which were previously getting in the way (think 1 and 2G) will be removed. Oh, and all the “G’s” mean this data and stuff can travel vie air rather than via wire, which was once how all information would travel. Now I expect that I sound like a waffling politician, trying to explain science… But there is a very informative video on YouTube, which explains the scientific background, infinite times more consise than I ever could- Just type in “the truth about 5G” under “real engineering”, then the video should come up!
A diagram to show where 5G (and TV remote controls) fit on the electromagnetic spectrum (source, ABC)
While 5G does have some advantages; being 10 times faster than 4G, making it possible to “download a full length film in just seconds.” As well as the capacity to “transform cities”, and even making it possible for a bridge to give a physical signal if it needs repairing. And microchips of it around the house… Though I can’t shake off the thought of immense amounts of light which may radiate out of all our potholes! Still, I don’t see why this would mean the government would immediately act on repairs… So in a way, is this just a waste of time, money and resources? Is it a potential threat to human civilisation, as it could potentially enable technology to rise above us in power and intelligence, making us a little redundant. And what if this all gets in the wrong hands? I can definitely see why some people are hugely in favour of this, as it also has the potential to enhance production of medic equipment and drugs. Plus just imagine what further advances could spring out from this! But this won’t cause any concerns to fade away.
But what exactly are the concerns, and how much truth lays behind them?
1. Health concerns
So chances are, my family were a bit odd- but I remember as a young child, being told not to put a mobile phone right to my ear. This was due what I thought were “large” amounts of radiation this emitted, but that would have been nothing compared to what is happening with 5G. So according to RadiationHealthRisks.com, “1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1-5 gigahertz of frequency, meanwhile “5G uses 24-90” gigahertz. Now reading this, it seems like a hummongeous difference at least, while the more obserbent may have also noted that it is a very vast range. Now to many, this can feel very disconcerting- suggesting little certainty and prediction of the effects and dangers this 5G could bring about. But what on earth does this really mean?
The Federal radio commission, stated that “the signals from commercial wireless transmitters are typically far below the RF exposure limits at any location that is accessible to the public.” And while this sounds promising, and that ultimately putting this all into perspective,, this amount of radiation still isn’t harmful, there is no guarantee. Mean while the World Health Organisation classified 5G as being “possibly carcinogenic to humans”- meaning this could possibly cause cancer. Whilst 5G supporters bite back, stating that the WHO almost says “everything causes cancer”, due to putting this in the same class as caffeine. Yet this doesn’t leave me feeling at all reassured. Like we all associate caffeine as being in a cup of tea or coffee, nevertheless we know that caffeine in huge doses is harmful- to the point where even energy drinks have been banned for under 16 year olds. And we don’t really know how high the dose of radiation will be, thus we don’t know if this will effect us. While although this radiation may be non-ionising, when there is so so much of it, we are not really certain how much danger it could cause. And although most of us have microwaves in our homes, we don’t exactly get them on every street corner, acting as if they’re cooking something, but with their doors open…
2. Environmental concerns
Firstly it is possible that the infrastructure used to work with 5G could consume as much as 3 times more energy. While the latest figures from GSM association shows the telecoms industry currently consumes about 3% of energy, but chief executive at Ranplan Wireless says “the onset and rollout of 5G globally could result in a potential increase in data traffic of up to 1000 times”. Now anyone can see how this is a shocking amount, and the environmental effects could be detrimental. Whilst there is little circulating knowledge about the potential extent of which 5G could take over, having the power to “transform cities” sounds extremely disconcerting to me- suggesting that the addition of 5G could use an awful lot of energy. Meanwhile the website “5G crisis” states that “the communications industry could use 20% of all world’s electricity by 2025”. Expressing concerns that this would undermine climate change targets like the aim for an eventually carbon neutral environment.
Albeit of the potential gains of this, if this adds to slowing any target of climate change goals, then surly now is not the right time to have this. With Climate change pressure group, Extinction Rebellion pairing with the “stop 5G campaign” who aims to “expose the dangers in the roll out of 5G”, proves how this is an immense concern among many climate change activists (source, GloucesterLive).
One of the many powerful posters/artwork produced by an extinction Rebellion protester, used to be held up on a protest (source, Shout Out UK)
3. Security reasons
raconteur.net states that 5G “poses an elevated security threat mainly partly because there are more vectors through which adversaries can attack.” Moreover 94% of telecoms operators and industry experts are worried about the risks that 5G could pose on security. The website states too that 5G will enable smart cities and fast driving cars “seeing 5G networks underpinning cities and self driving cars.” If 5G networks are enabling these applications, they are interfered with or shut off, it could result in a hacker shutting off a city’s water supply or somebody “gaining access to an army of delivery drones”. This kind of proves that the implication of 5G could be very risky, for various reasons, and there may be a lower sense of security. However in some ways, 5G may improve the security being “more secure than 3G and 4G.” Chief technologist, at world wide technology, Daniel Valle quotes that “f the ecosystem addresses the issues, the technology will be more secure due to better encryption than 3G and 4G.” adding that “Each evolution is more secure than its predecessor and that doesn’t change with 5G.” Whilst 5G should enable mobile operators to offer security insights to business.” Now if you are a bit like me, really you will have no clue what this really means. And while we may be excited about the prospect about “virtual cities”, all of this kind of goes above my head…
now would 5G have the power to “transform cities”, (Soucre, Intel@builders)
4. “Other threats to human life”
So with the possibility of this increasing the number of self driving cars on the road, as well as enabling more automated manufacturing of goods, this may lead to jobs in certain industries to eventually be lost forever. As this may in time enable big, monopoly like corporations to buy up these technologies (or some may already be inbuilt), on order to benefit from lower average costs, without having to be paying as many workers to carry out the same job. This in tern leads to higher profits, while higher unemployment. While it is very unclear that this would be the intention, and it is possibly this may create new jobs in new fields…
Now would self driving cars fuelled by 5G be a revolutionary movement, or a threat to the jobs and livelihoods of a large chunk of our workforce? (source, BBC.com)
5. The corona-virus conspiricy
So a few weeks ago, a rumour and conspiracy theory was arising that the building of 5G was linked to the Coronavirus pandemic. This theory was then endorsed by many well known names including Amanda Holden, Woody Harrelson and boxer Amir Khan. This was arose from the belief that 5G began in Wohang, the same place as we knew where the coronavirus most likely begun spreading. Now this seems like a harmless conspiracy theory, nevertheless it is apperient that it’s lead to many people in the UK protesting. This includes abuse of 5G key workers, arson attacks and attempts to damage the uprising infrastructure.
In London near westminister bridge, an “anti-lockdown” protest was held, where there was believed to be “some mention of 5G” leading to 14 people being arrested (source, the Express). While 22 EE phone masts were attacked, just over Easter, by “attempting to set fire” to them (source, inews.co.uk). However some of these protests have been completely undestructive, such as the “plot” to “make a noise” by “turning off smartphones, tablets and personal computers”; as the page stated they needed to be “heard silently” (source, the independent).
Protest being held by Westminister Bridge, last weekend, before police broke it up telling people to “go home” (source, Sky News)
This has not just been apperient in England, but there have been protests against the 5G in many countries, including in Australia. This has led to Australia’s chief doctor, Professor Brendon Murphy, to speak out stating that the protest was as a result off “a lot of very silly misinformation”, reassuring that “there is absolutely no evidence about 5G doing anything in the coronavirus space.” Also aligned with the view of what many of us may contain, he understands that “people have the right to protest” but “they should be held to account” if they are “breaching the social distancing rules.”
Therefore while we can see that 5G does pose genuine possible threats to the world we are living, generally to do with health, and environmental reasons, many people are opposing 5G for far fetched, untrue reasons. With multiple conspiracy theories about this, as well as just the recent one on the link to Coronavirus; including a claim that “5G was killing birds in Holland”, these theories often tend to appeal to “flat earthers.” In a way this is a shame, because the logic and the behaviour of some of these opposing 5G makes the argument against it seem a lot weaker. While the general public are just going to think there is “nothing to worry about.” Which may be true, but unfortunately to me, all these powers of 5G do seem a little overwhelming. Especially considering the little certainty surrounding it. Oh, and how many of these masts have been constructed during the coronavirus lockdown in the UK. I cant help but feel that this is a little squiffy. Nonetheless technology already holds so much power which is far beyond my understanding. And for hundreds, if not thousands of years, technology has provided us with so many advances, nevertheless has posed risks. Therefore do we really need to be worrying about 5G specifically?
Also is this really what our world needs at the moment. Despite their potential benefits: including being predicted to be 10-100 times faster at transferring data, being more responsive and with the ability to transfer hospitals, warehouses and even entire cities, surly it is more important to invest to ensure that our world is a safer and more equal place for everyone. And although the conspiracy theory between perhaps there is a hidden element of truth in this after all. As surly the coronavirus will hopefully teach us to be more hygienic, not to prioritise profits over healthcare and to consider risks sooner- to avoid such a pandemic. And what could this 5G potentially cause? So maybe 5G could potentially be very beneficial to us. Yet to me at least, it seems possible side effects are very vague, and there’s not complete certainty about how safe this would be. In many ways. Therefore maybe more research prior to the development would be necessary, or more genuine scrutiny by public bodies.
7 weeks into the Lockdown. And everything has changed so drastically.
~Small children now have a restricted time to when they can play outside,
~Teenagers cannot spend time with friends,
~ Students are having to self educate, petrified that they are not doing enough, or doing it right
~Adults are petrified about whether they will be able to get enough money now and in the future to make ends meet
~Front line workers are working flat out, harder than ever before, terrified While older relatives are missing children and granchildren, after having to isolate themselves compleatly.
You do not realise how so much can change in such little time, until it actually happens… Inevitably this has taken a toll on those who live in challenging households, those who were already “just about getting by” financially, and those who suffer with mental health issues. Plus with everyone else, we all miss people who we love and the experiences the world had on offer to us, before this lockdown begun…
Meanwhile according to official statistics, the UK has been the second most effected country in the world now only behind the USA. With nearly 30,000 lives lost (edit, over 30,000 now) each belonging to a valuable individual. Where so much potential for them is lost, plus a circle of grieving friends and family members surrounds each of these cases.
Now however it may appear that we have “passed our peak”, as on Monday we saw the lowest daily death toll since March. Nonetheless this was still above 300, and if we compare ourselves with other countries like New Zealand where they have exerecised very similar lockdown measures but these were put in place literally when daily deaths were in single figures, and it remained this way all throughout- with a total of just 20 deaths! Whilst they forced Quarantine on those coming through the boarders, very early on, before any lockdown was under way. In stark contrast from the UK, whereby just a few days ago the government announced that they will begin to in-force those coming into the country, to self isolate for 14 days- being after the catastrophe we have experienced. While Greece were more “on it”, concerning putting in the right measures at the right time, having only experienced 150 deaths in total, far more than what the UK is experiencing even now on a day to day basis. And that is in-spite of Greece facing “a near decade-long debt crisis”. Economic analyst Antonis Papagiannidis describes Britain’s handling of this pandemic as being “almost Mediterranean in style, flippant and carefree”. And people who stress that our government’s handling of this has been unsatisfactory have every right to feel this way. From the unclear message at the beginning where we were brainwashed in thinking this was nothing worse than the flu and that as long as we “wash our hands” (and sing happy birthday) all would be ok, to the unwillingness to react to what was going on in Europe at the time thus the too late lockdown measures, denying to accept Europe’s offer of PPE to us for a reason no bigger than “for political reasons” and far more cockups as it were. Nonetheless someone more symphatetic towards “this government” will claim that it is the “toughest job of any government in years.” And you cannot really deny this being true… Whilst the lengthy period of austerity prior to this, didn’t help. Putting the NHS under far more strain than what would have been necessary otherwise.
But right now, most of us don’t want to focus on looking back, but instead to look forward to what will happen next. As inevitably people will wonder whether they will be able to go back to work, and if so what extra precautions will they be obliged to make. While people want to know if they will be able to meet with family members and friends, and some off us kind of want to buy another potted plant (it can and will wait, don’t worry!) Nevertheless some people believe that lifting the lockdown now would be far too soon, and it should therefore wait until we are confident that there are very little new infections. Otherwise, as well as the extra avoidable suffering that lifting the lockdown now could cause, some speculate that it could potentially cause a “second wave”. This way, it would be like a “lose, lose” situation, where apart from anything else, the economy could shrink more than if there were to be a slow, planned and steady exit…
Nonetheless as we have heard all too much, it is those people who are vulnerable to this who we are aiming to protect the most. And quite rightly so. However to me, in a way it seems like a battle between protecting one aspect of vulnerability against the other. The primary protection of, well fragile lives and really thinking of it, seemingly trivial matters including the economy, people’s jobs and people’s mental health. m m
Personally I would say to be gentle, all around. For a start, the reopening of the country should be handled with care and caution, making tiny changes every over a long period of time. So this way at it gives us a constant boost, feeling we have something to look forward to, while we are less worried about the consequences of this- as at least the country is reopening in a controlled manner, where we can keep on top of the side effects of this. Meanwhile we can try to be a little more understanding towards those who may not be strictly following the rules, or have a little more lee-way. This way I am not saying things like mass gatherings should be encouraged. Absolutely not! Nevertheless a little understanding towards those youngsters who may be seen with one or tow friends could be implemented, as I am sure that this would be a living hell for anyone experiencing a very tough time at home and their only escape is by spending time away.
However it has already been afloat in some newspapers that police have been letting young people who are in difficult households travel to a local friend’s home for a “cooling off period”. And to some extent, I think this a good thing. As otherwise they may be a greater risk of not letting this happen, than of having just a couple more people meeting one or two people, when they need that period of stability. Nevertheless there is a bit of a dilemma, as it isn’t too clear and I am sure there are many in a situatiion who aren’t able to leave for a littlee bit, as the parents are unaware of this rule- Or unwilling to admit there is a problem. However to be fair, this has not been implamented by the government. Rather, it is just whhat the police are “accepting”, so not many people in this situation would be aware that they’re of to see a friend. Meanwhile what would happen if the the government were to make this all a bit clearer. It may inevitibly lead to more of us intrepreting these rules to our liking, putting more people at risk. Plus anybody can lie… Likewise if people became aware that those who are “hanging out” are not being punished, more and more will follow like sheep…
Another issue is the government has said from the start that people are allowed to leave the house for more than “1 form of exercise a day”, for “health reasons”. For instence, somebody suffering autism may be allowed to travel to their favourite spot and spend more time outdoors for longer, and more than once a day- which the government made clearer a few weeks ago. This way it looks like those whos own health would be effected by the lockdown rules, do have protection. Nevertheless no exeptions have been made for, those who suffer mental health and may be more at risk from not seeing others.
But there is always a line to draw with these kind of issues, and a compromise to be met between one side and another. Is it right that we should
Regarding businesses, I would personally argue that all businesses should receive support. Especially those smmaller independent ones, ones where there are many workers, and those which have a positive efvfect on the community. And although the government is stepping in massibvely to help most business, it is not quite as good as it seems. People who have been self employed for less than a year for instence, havent been able to recieve any government help. And whilst the government’s loans are helpful to business, they only really help businesses up to an extent. While most will still be paying “lockdown”, rent, while getting barely any income through the door- if any being a cafe. Moreover, people do not know when this will come through… So in this cse, it could and will lead to some businesses going down, meaning higher rates of unemployment and social issues arising because of this. Now should the government be more gental with this, and let those “low risk” businesses go back to work, or should they wait longer. Or chip in a bit more, and pay them a guaranteed amount according to the number of months or weeks that they are not able to be at work for. And while I most certainly see the point about why the economy should be the last on the agenda, s we have to prioritise people’s lives- unfortunately like it or not, the strength of the economy definitely has a massive effect on people’s livelihoods- and length of lives. Imagine if there are too many firms gone and too many people out of work at once, the government will need to pay more benefits. Thus may result in more cuts (sadly..). Then there will be increasing numbers of families, who cannot afford to put food down on the table at every meal 😦
Another side is that, why can the government not help these businesses stay afloat more? Yeah, another bloody hard thing… The issue of “where will the money come from” has to arise doesn’t it? And yeah, there are ways the government could extract this money if they wished, but there would be risks. Therefore they have to prioritise where and how to spend this. And part of this is a long term plan of how to go about taxing people and spending money… Or the big unanswerable question about how can we make the economy work better?
I think whatever happens, regarding businesses the government should do their best to not keepp them in the unknown. Many are able to “work from home”, meanwhile there are some whiich would require strict office social distancing rules if they were to return. Now how about those who kind of provide public entertainment. Now I am not talking about summer festivals, pubs and concerts. No way. But the controversial question of whether Nanny Betty should be able to pop into the local farm shop to buy some gardening seeds. Or whether old Uncle tom should be allowed to pop to the local libary to take out some books. Or about whether i can buy some compost so that I can actually repot my plant that has grown so big that the roots are visible from above. Yeah, horrible! Now obviously none of these people would be going out for “essential” reasons, but is it important to help these workers.
There is also the issue off compaciency. Some of us Brits unfortunately don’t like being told what to do. So if we let the lockdown linger on for too long, then people may not take the guidelines so seriously. However, if we relax it, peoplle may choose to twist the rules further. Whiilst it is quite possible small businesses may illegially open up again.
But perhaps really, the only way of enabling the best protection, is by telling people how serious it still is, rather than saying how this is not serious. Like I remember about 2 weeks before we went into “lockdown” and many of the European countries who hadn’t had it as bad as us were already in this situation. Meanwhile many of us were still busy laughing it off… And it didn’t really hit, until nearer to the time, where there were finally fewer cars on the road, and we were all too busy buying loo paper (dont worry, im not really guilty of that.
Ok, so this is just what comes to my mind regarding easing the lockdown. It is scary to write really, as in a few years, months, weeks I may look back on this and think how horrifically wrong I am. Yet I am SO SO undecided. And in-fact, I don’t know if anyone really knows what is best or what to do. No idea really what will happen on Sunday, where many of expect us to see a few measures being relaxed. Will any measures be relaxed, or will there be another extension? Both of these prospects scare me to be honest, but my gut instinct is that it would be better for very little change at the moment, to ensure at least better safety. I dread to think what another wave would bring, I dread to think what else could happen in the future, I dread to imagine the vast amounts of suffering this pandemic + lockdown are causing together. It’s an extraordinarily grim prospect when you come to think of it. Whilst I hope that we can learn to be better prepared for something like this in the future, to Maybe the lockdown will teach everyone something. In that there needs to be a more equal society so we aren’t all worrying over the detrimental economic effects, Perhaps all we can do during times like this is to hope, hope that we will have learned in the future to take more precautionary steps as well as the importance f protecting our fragile planet. Less potential future suffering. As well as hoping for better times ahead. Whatever happens, it is beyond our control, really with something like this we cannot be expected to “stay positive” but we can remember good times we have experienced, and use this as proof that good times remain ahead even though they may seem out of sight. While hope that too, the world may just be able to change and grow slightly from this…
Coming back to this a few days later, having already written the bulk, the gap between then and now has given me a little extra time to think things through.
And with currently 7 minutes before Boris Johnson is expected to announce what will happen next, here is what I hope (and probably think will be the case at least with some of this…). So I strongly hope, and am confident that it won’t be like flicking a swith. I reckon many closures will still remain. I hope social distancing remains in place, and duh it will do.. However I think (and hope) that the government will discreetly provide some businesses with guidelines of how to SAFELY get back to work, where it is not possible or always practical to work from home, and where it doesn’t involve crowds of people. I acknowledge it is important to get the economy moving again, in a slow,, steady and responsibly handled way. Because like said before, it kind of is people’s livlihoods. Though then I know the gvnt can intervene and help AND IT SHOULD DO SO. But being unemployed does effect MH with some regardless… Moreover concerning people meeting others, aany gig groupings shouldn’t be aallowed. And the rule of not seeing others (non household members) should stiull be in place cuz of the simplicity. But I think the mutual understanding that some people would be having a hard time, needs to be in place, and that young people in small groups should beignored unless in huge groups
Hiii, so this year for Mental health awareness; I’m not just making one post about this, like I would usually aim to do so, but two! Yeah, call it a double whammy! But I think this is kind of appropriate, as I have more time on my hands than I would usually enabling myself to write this (well just copy and paste some lovely quotes really) while I’m sure many of you have more time available too! Whilst I know everything happening in the world currently is likely to be effecting us. So here are some quotes in which I would agree with, and find quite inspirational. These include from reducing the stigma, promoting self love and positivity. So enjoy!
Source, Healthline
Source, Temple Beauty, FacebookSource, positive mental health quotes, Facebook
Source, success magazineSource, united by popSource, pintrestSource, pintrrestSource, Miss MentalSource, Emma Clairbell.comSource, Healthline
So here are just a few good quotes which I like, though as I am sure you are aware, there is such a vast number of quotes out there.
And you know why? Because there are many strong people, whether musicians, sports people, online influencers who’ve had experiences. Being it in themselves, or having known someone close. And it goes to show- anyone can go through it, each story looking different.
While it can and does effect people, regardless of background, occupation, age or whatever! It is ridiculous to think that this only effects one type of person, as it is far from the truth. Therefore mental health shouldn’t be dismissed, with comments like “you don’t look like you have an illness”, “You have a good life”, or “you’re too young”. As it is just completely fictitious.
And one more thing, before I post this, is that I know many people going through a difficult time get rather fed up with being inundated with rather facile quotes basically screaming “think positive!” However no one person would have gotten a pen and written all of this down on a piece of scrap paper for the fun of it, would they? Yeah, exactly…
Instead people from all walks of life, who may be overcoming this, have thought deeply about mental health and realise that there is nothing wrong with them going through what they are, that it is possible to work through this with the right support and that they are worthy.
Personally Political 
