Wednesday 30th July 2025
Blog Page 781

Radio Four’s money man on fake news media

0

Social media and its role in mediating our perceptions of the world, is something of a modern bugbear. Centrists are tormented with visions of people rejecting the benevolent BBC and falling headlong into the arms of echo chambers and political extremists, whose views are subliminally poisoning the old, the left-behind and the less educated with a doctrine of pseudo-fascism.

Tim Harford laughs. The author of the Undercover Economist and presenter of Radio Four programme ‘More or Less?’, Harford prides himself on his ability to challenge such commonly held but often thinly substantiated beliefs.

For starters, no one, he says, even the most educated, is immune to the lure of media distortion. “Unreflective sharing and retweeting” is “super easy”, and even the driest of statistics can be interpreted emotionally, our own beliefs taking precedence over context. With a limit of just 280 characters, it is physically impossible for a tweet to contain the caveats of any study.

Any retweeted single headline is liable to mislead. Take, for instance, a recent article published by the Independent, that reverberated across the Remain Twittersphere. 230 EU academics had resigned from Oxford in what was termed a mass ‘Brexodus’.
It was a considerable increase on the preceding year and is probably testament to the amount of hostility felt by EU citizens living in the UK.

But the implied European ‘brain drain’ had not manifested. Indeed, EU recruitment had balanced staff losses, leaving the total number of academics almost unchanged.
Whilst such context doesn’t immediately invalidate the point being made, it mitigates the concept of a black-and-white Brexit apocalypse.

Such enthusiasm over this report, was, Harford says, symptomatic of “confirmation bias”.
“If you’re someone like me who thinks Brexit is not going to be terribly helpful for the British university system, when I see a headline saying ‘Oh all these academics have resigned’, I’d be like ‘Oh, yeah, of course’, rather than going ‘Wait hang on, how many people normally resign? Is that usual?’

“But on the other hand, if someone said more EU academics have joined from the EU so there’s no problem, I would naturally go, I’m not sure if I believe you, I want to see the details.”

Paradoxically, it is often those who are politically interested and have access to a lot of information who hold most strongly their original prejudice.

“Generally having more knowledge and more expertise doesn’t protect you, it just gives you more intellectual firepower to deliver the result you want, the result you anticipated to get,” Harford tells me. “Benjamin Franklin, one of the American founding fathers, once said (I’m paraphrasing here) ‘It’s great to be a rational person because you can find a reason to do anything you want.’

“And social media, with the sheer amount of statistics, reports and empirical ‘facts’, provides the perfect weaponry to back up almost any pre-existing argument, as well as a ready-made audience prepared to confirm one’s views.” The only solution is to be more self-critical.

“The very first thing you’ve got to do if you see any of these numbers is think ‘How do I feel about these numbers?’ Does this number make me feel righteously indignant, does it make me feel defensive?

“Unless you examine your feelings about the number, you’re not going to be able to analyse it in any sensible way.”

But it is perhaps through awareness of ‘fake news’, brought to our attention by social media, that we can be become savvier consumers of information. Newspapers get things wrong too, but by being aware of the potency of misleading headlines and uncontextualised statistics, we can become more self-aware as readers.

Rather than taking a newspaper, with its innate air of authority, at face value, we can extrapolate our online critical faculty to consider the implications of a newspaper’s political agenda and bias.

Furthermore, social media can also allow us access to a broader spectrum of views beyond the political frame of our publication of choice. “Yes, people cluster together on social media, you follow people whose views you agree with and the algorithms show you stuff you’re likely to agree with as well,” Harford admits. “But, and there’s pretty good research on this, you will see a broader spread.”

Through social media, we are liberated from the unifying eye of the editorial: we can skip between publications, our news feed having the ability to yoke together the Brexit-friendly opinions of the Telegraph and the anti-privatisation views typical of the Observer.

Such ability to deviate from set political party dogmas is important in a world where the borders of left and right are becoming increasingly blurred and cross-party issues dominate popular debate. We can use social media to our advantage, if only we stop believing that our existing knowledge makes us less susceptible to prejudice.

A Letter To: Singles on Valentine’s Day

0

Dear Singles,

Valentine’s Day is upon us all, and so is everything that comes with it. You may be the type of person who’ll be secure in the knowledge that you’re a whole and rounded individual, not defined by your relationship status, or you may be the type of person who’ll languish in the fear that you’re fundamentally unlovable and doomed to be alone forever. Whichever it is, I’m here to tell you that you should re-evaluate your attitude to V-Day, because it is, in fact, a holiday for you.

Hear me out. You may not have anyone to be getting cosy with, but I’m sure you have someone to love in your life: your family, your friends, that person you made eye contact with more than twice in the Rad Cam. Whoever it is, good for you. Love makes the world go round. All of them (except the real snakes) will love you whatever the day.

Besides, we all know at least a few couples who will not be spending this holiday together again next year. So, rest safe in the knowledge that whilst for many, 14 February is a day designated to desperately fan the dying embers of their relationship into a few sputtering flames, for you, it’s just another day on which you are loved by your parents if no one else.

Moreover, let’s not neglect the fact that however unloved and alone you may feel, to be single on Valentine’s Day is a wise financial decision. You remove yourself from an entire market that could be exploited by the cold cash-grabbing claws of the corporations that run the capitalist cogs of our society. Sure, it’s nice to show someone you love that you appreciate them by buying them thoughtful gifts to show how much they mean to you. But, you know what else is nice? Pouncing on all the discounted chocolates on 15 February and consuming them by yourself, smug in the knowledge that you don’t have to split your spoils with anyone.

And finally, let’s face it, a day designed to celebrate romance and courtship is only going to inspire resentment in the bitter masses. People always root for the underdogs, and come Valentine’s, that is a position that you firmly occupy. An onslaught of BuzzFeed articles filled with ‘15 Reasons Being Single is The Best’ are headed your way, a litany of affirmations about how Valentine’s Day doesn’t really matter so don’t feel bad.

Come next year, some of you will have been snapped up by the ever-hungry jaws of romantic bliss, and some of you will be as single, solitary, or alone as you are right now. Whatever happens, your singledom is as uncertain and possibly ephemeral as most people’s relationships, and whether you resent it or revel in it, never forget that this is your day to celebrate.

Lots of love (because you deserve it),

 

Meha x

@mehascribbles

The same old Valentine’s Day dinners are sickening

0

Did You Know I Have A Girlfriend?: Valentine’s Day is no worse than any other on his social media – it is, surprise surpise, just more over-filtered faux candids of his girlfriend sitting in Wagamama’s. Why are there so many heart emojis? Has he copy and pasted a 13 year-old’s Instagram bio? ‘Dinner with this one’, it’s captioned (ew). It crosses your mind that you have never seen the girlfriend actually eating in one of these pictures, just staring longingly at a plate of bland, untouched food in the £10 price bracket. Does she ever eat? Is she even allowed to? Her dull, hopeless eyes plead silently for him to end this torture.

吃苦: This is a Chinese idiom literally meaning ‘to eat bitterness’, which is exactly what these two will be doing for their Valentine’s meal. Neither can admit when it’s time to call it quits, so they’ve tried to make soufflé four times this evening, pulling it out from the oven, with each miserable attempt, a concoction more sad and deflated than the last. ‘This is what you do! This is what you do to everything!’ they inevitably will shriek at each other, as the fruit of their labour collapses quietly in the cold February air. After a few hours, he’ll order Deliveroo while she redoes the makeup she cried off so they can take a new joint cover photo.

Les gourmets: That couple who you want to like but you just can’t, because they’re too overachieving and therefore painfully damaging to your self-esteem. V-Day is obviously no exception. You’ll click onto a Snapchat story that appears to be a Food Network special from a Michelin-starred restaurant, only to realise it’s this cursed duo making coq au vin from scratch in the Staircase 20 kitchen. What a pair of idiots, you’ll mutter, struggling to see as your Tesco Basics ready meal steams up your glasses.

The aggressive singleton: By the end of January, she’s tagged her friends in every published Buzzfeed article about spending Valentine’s Day drinking wine with the cat (‘literally meee’). But it’s not literally her, because she doesn’t own a cat and is therefore trying to strong-arm you into a ‘girly date’ to Jamie’s Italian, where she’ll over-order pasta and garlic bread to prove that she’s quirky because she likes carbs. For dessert: pinot grigio and a snotty meltdown about how her Year 10 boyfriend took her here for their six-month anniversary.

The sexual deviant: They only want to eat one thing this Valentine’s Day, and you get it off Tinder, not from a restaurant.

The lotus-eaters: This couple isn’t going to let some commercialised, romantic holiday jar them out of their permanent state of peaceful apathy. They’ll make it a night in, moving like serene, drugged-up brontosauruses between the sofa and the kitchen counter, with the faint burble of Black Mirror in the background punctuated only by the occasional crunch of a Dorito. It doesn’t matter if you eat smelly food on a date night if the other person does too.

The budget-conscious: He firmly believes that Valentine’s gestures are always better when they’re cost effective, because financial stability is the truest form of love (what a senitment). To that end, he thinks you guys should stay in tonight – there’s some pasta bake in the fridge that you could microwave? It’s from last weekend and it’s totally meat free, so it should be safe.

‘I borrowed Daddy’s card’: Why is her Bitmoji in Paris? It’s the middle of term and you’re sure she has lectures tomorrow. ‘Daddy booked a trip for me and Jonty because I did quite well in collections, back on Friday x’. She and her slightly inbred-looking long distance boyfriend will gallivant around for a few days (seriously – how do they not have tutors chasing them down?), blessing you with pictures of food that you can’t even identify because it’s so expensive. Expect lots of bizarre-looking liquid nitrogen concoctions and plates that seem pretty much empty apart from Jackson Pollock-esque splatterings of sauce. When you do recognise a dish, it’s because you think you saw a Vice documentary about it – or rather, about the highly endangered South American lemur which is its primary ingredient.

If you’re reading this and realise that you exemplify one of these needy and painful stereotypes then remember – it’s not Valentine’s day yet, free yourself while you can.

John Bird: Tackling the big issues

0

Reading through the transcript of my interview with John Bird, the Editor-in-Chief of the Big Issue,  I am reminded of Donald Trump. It is sprawling and constantly changing. Every sentence finishes on a different subject to its start and each thought is a non-sequitur.

The reasons for this, however, are very different. Whilst Trump is cynical and confused, Bird is positive and his mind is not distracted but overflowing with new ideas and solutions to the problems that he sees in the world. Also unlike Trump, if that comparison could ever be valid, Bird was not born with a spoon is his mouth. By the age when most of us were thinking about university applications, Bird had already lived in an orphanage, worked as a butcher’s boy, and served multiple spells in prison.

He tells me, when we talk in a café near the Houses of Parliament where every customer is a political name. “I don’t begrudge one iota, everything that happened to me in the end, turned to its opposite.” He criticises those who have left poverty and never looked back. He says: “I went back to where I came from, so to speak, and struggled to get other people out, and that is just so rare.” Whilst others escaped poverty and let that become just one part of their story, Bird has made it part of his life.

He is incredibly self-reflective when we talk. It would not be hard to when your life has gone from one extreme to another. He analyses some of the flaws in his personality. “I am incredibly talkative” and adds that he has “a super abundance of belief in myself which is a bit disruptive.” He even talks about how when drinking “I tend to over egg the pudding so to speak”.

Bird served multiple spells in prison when he was younger. He looks back on this as a positive. When he went to prison at the age of 16, he did not know how to read and write. But while incarcerated he learnt and said that this “changed the trajectory of my life.” Here, his mind starts to overflow and he side-tracks to talking about the history of welfare. He is fascinated by history and says that he wants “people to know that we are all historical and we are all to do with wonderful inventions.” It is enjoyable, but I try to get him back on track.

I ask him about the Big Issue. In 1991, he and his long term friend, Gordon Roddick who co-founded the Body Shop, started the magazine to combat rising homelessness. More than 20 years later, the Big Issue now publishes in nine countries and has over 80,000 readers. One of the magazine’s mantras is to give people ‘a hand up not a hand out.’ The phrase is synonymous with the Thatcher-esque critique of welfare. This is something that Bird seems to agree with. “What has often happened in poverty is we say here you are, we will give you this, you don’t have to work for it and you don’t have to earn it but you will use it wisely and its up to you. That is a hand out.”

This is not to say that he agrees with the full meaning of the critique. He accepts that the results of a hand up are limited by an abusive political system. “Most of those [people given hand ups] will never become eye surgeons at St Thomas’s hospital”, he says. He is also deeply sympathetic to the individual factors, which limit the chances of the homeless. He knows better than most the day to day problems that are caused by homelessness and is constantly working to correct them. “They have been destroyed by the conditions that they live in and they have added to that through self-medication in drink and drugs and all that stuff,” he tells me.

However, there is a worry that the Big Issue is not having as great an impact as it could. Bird says that idea is to “simulate what most of us have to do.” But simulation is not enough. Real change doesn’t take place through simulation but through action. The Big Issue fails to tackle the big issue. Despite this, he believes that the magazine can help people get out of homelessness. He calls this the three per cent method, which means breaking down problems into small portions.

He says that he got the inspiration for the idea when he was in prison and was given a task digging trenches by a prison officer. He says that he started dividing up the work into more manageable chunks. When the officer asked him “what the fuck do you think you’re doing?” he said, “well, if I come here and look around, it’s going to overwhelm me and it’s going to piss me off.” Breaking up the task made it much easier for him and changed his perspective on homelessness.

He has a solution for homelessness, but does not believe that it is will ever end. He says that there is a “churn” of people becoming homeless and the statistics seem to back this up. Rough sleeping has increased by fifteen per cent in the last year and, with changes to Universal Credit and more austerity to come, this will only get worse. Bird analyses deep symptomatic issues in governance which have caused homelessness. “The way to change homelessness is to go right into the centre of government, which in itself produces the mechanisms.”

Institutions, for Bird, are at the core of the homelessness problem. “You have to got to cut the cancer out of poverty,” he adds. The discussion brings out a question of Bird’s personal politics. He sits on the cross-benches in the Lords but has previously told the Express that he is a “working-class Tory with Marxist-Leninist/Labour leanings.” A possible oxymoron? He doesn’t think so. He says that he finds liberalism “incredibly hard to live with” and isn’t a nationalist but it is hard to place his politics.

Perhaps that is because he has an issue that is so close to his heart and no one is successful in combating that. Everything is related to it. He labels Brexit as “the greatest opportunity to declare war on poverty.” He seems to be frustrated by the inability of politicians to experience real environments and live real lives. He spoke publicly about wanting Trump to visit so that he could show him the poverty in Britain. He tells me: “I would love to take him somewhere where he would be transformed and humanised.”

He goes on in stronger terms. He imagines politicians in a Hollywood film and says “I would transport the fuckers back to poverty. I would take them to a hospice and I would lock them in.” He adds, in slightly calmer language, that this also applies to British politicians: “spending time with people in deep poverty or need would do them all a good shake up.”

Most of all, his politics seem to come down to principle and not policy. He says that although there “are people that I would choose not to associate with” in the House of Lords, “I have very little problem with people who are committed to social justice irrespective of their politics.” Political differences don’t matter as long as someone wants to make a change.

Bird is a man with many plans. In answer to one question he tells me about a tea towel he is going to sell for charity, a plan for sociable housing, and a bill that he is sponsoring to combat homelessness in the Lords. His mind overflows with thoughts, plans, and solutions. He is a nightmare to interview, because each question causes a run of thought that has no imaginable end.

He is someone who has, in a very real sense, lived two lives. He was once unable to read and write, he is now eloquent and educated. He once was without a roof over his head, he now lives in a 17th century cottage. He once worked in the kitchens of the Houses of Parliament, he now sits on the red benches of the Lords. He explains the contrast to me. “The world is divided between the rescued and the rescuers… I was once of the rescued and I became a rescuer, and because of that am fascinated by the idea of doing it for many many many millions of rescued people.”

Bird is passionate, unsatisfied, and excited. He tells me of his dreams in life; to constantly keep learning and doing. “I want to fill a table with books and I want to sit there and bowdlerise them, or whatever you do, and essays and… I would love it, I would love it.”

He may be excited, but this often seems to lead him to frustration as a campaigner who wants change and expects more from people. “We have to say to the poorest in the country: don’t just whinge about the government. Get out there!” “We are very good at locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.” As we wrap up our interview I ask Bird if he has anything else to add. He recites a poem to me that is going to be printed on the tea towels that he is trying to sell for charity. He jokingly says that it is “up there with Lord Byron.” The poem is about a weed, and is sweet, with each line starting “weedy, weedy, weedy.”

There is nothing particularly moving in the poem itself, but the idea gives an insight into Bird’s mind. He believes that he has personal responsibility to help others. While he cannot be expected to cure the homelessness problem single-handedly, his dedication and enthusiasm should make the cynical among us think twice.

Hassan’s nominated for kebab van of the year

1

Broad Street kebab van Hassan’s has been shortlisted in the 2018 British Kebab Awards.

The student favourite is one of six establishments nominated in the ‘Best Kebab Van’ category.

Hassan’s is the only Oxford- based eatery to have been short-listed. This is the sixth year that the British Kebab Awards have run.

The awards ceremony will be held on 12 March at the Park Plaza Westminster Bridge Hotel.

There are 16 categories in this year’s awards, including regional awards for best kebab restaurant and best takeaway.

Hassan’s will go up against last year’s winner, Atalay’s in Thame, as well as Diamond Kebab (Cambridge), Billericay Kebab Van (Essex), Ozzy Kebab (Norfolk), and George’s Bodrum Kebab (Gloucester).

Hassan told Cherwell: “At first we were not even aware we were nominated until we actually got a call from the British Kebab Awards.

“We were completely happy and shocked. We do our best to provide good customer service and food with a smile.”

According to the competition’s website, over 1200 guests, including more than 300 MPs, lords, baronesses and councillors, and 800 businesses and community representatives attended last year’s ceremony.

The awards were founded in 2013 by the Centre for Turkey Studies, and celebrate an industry which brings £2.2 billion to the British economy annually.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and London Mayor Sadiq Khan were both guests at the awards in 2016.

Tickets for the ceremony are still on sale, with prices starting at £216 including dinner and drinks.

The van’s owner, Hassan Elouhabi, has been trading on Broad Street since 1995. Before this he worked in a French bakery.

In a 2016 interview with Cherwell he revealed that his favourite item on the menu was a “chicken wrap, with cheese and chips, chilli sauce and garlic mayonnaise… just a little bit of chicken and just a lit- tle bit of chips and I’m done for the whole night.

“The most ordered item has got to be chips and cheese, and then chips and cheese and meat – chicken or lamb,” he added.

Jolyon Scriven, a first-year Brasenose student, said: “It’s bizarre to think that someone could become a legend for a task as simple as running a kebab van.

“But Hassan, he goes above and beyond. He has kept Oxford students happy almost single-handedly for over a decade.”

Conor Magee, a third-year Exeter student, said: “No night out is complete without a trip to Hassan’s on the way back to college.

“The staff have a real charm which sets Hassan’s out above the competition, and it’s great to hear that it’s been nominated for such a prestigious award.”

Students from around the university have been supporting Hassan in the awards.

A recent Oxfess said: “Hassan’s is the only Oxford Kebab Van to have made it to the shortlist for the Best Kebab Van at the British Kebab Awards – let’s club together and take on Cambridge and ensure Oxford is home to officially the Best Kebab Van…”

Last year, Cherwell reported that drunk students had been buying from Hassan’s, and using the Cashew app to mistakenly pay rival van Hussein’s instead.

Hassan told Cherwell: “mistakes happen”.

Voting for the awards is open now at http://voting.britishkebabawards.

Our prudish British culture means the death of good sex

0

It was both relieving and pleasantly surprising when earlier this week the new Education Secretary confirmed that they would be continuing with their plans to require LGBT-inclusive sex and relationship education to be taught in schools. The scheme put forward earlier in the year was left in jeopardy when Justine Greening was sacked from her role and replaced by Tory MP Damien Hinds. While the alternative would be considerably worse, it is hard to see this as a great victory in 2018.

The ‘British’ stereotype is well established and something that some of us revel in, the stiff upper lip, the inescapable need to apologise at every opportunity, our ability to queue! Yet there are grave repercussions to our cultural attitude towards sex. It is embarrassing that as a society this is the first time we have considered discussing LGBT sex education in schools.

Arguably due to the horrifying past of HIV contraction and the resultant fear and stigma surrounding it, education on sex between men is considerably more important than the heterosexual focused banal videos of live births and anatomical penis diagrams which we receive currently. Lesbian sex, however, introduces a whole other issue within the sex education system.

Sex between women does not include many of the issues covered within hetero-normative sex education, which primarily focuses on reproduction and the spread of STDs which solely exist heterosexual relationships. This is obviously not unimportant, but what is consistently ignored is consensual sexual pleasure, and more specifically female sexual pleasure. Our prudishness prevents us from covering these areas due to their erotic and therefore supposedly inappropriate connotations, but the gaping hole of ignorance left as a result is the cause of a wide range of pertinent issues ranging from orgasm inequality to abuse and rape.

This is made exponentially worse by the fact that this gap is often filled for young boys with online porn, which presents sex entirely through the male gaze often not only degrading the women involved, but promoting violent acts as sexually fulfilling for them. This creates a disparity between the expectations of girls and boys, with girls’ education often coming from the equally flawed source of romantic comedies, which romanticises the sexual experience, presenting mutual orgasm as standard and completely disregarding the existence of foreplay.

Sex is often bad, awkward embarrassing or at least funny, and this is not represented by either source. Quite understandably this can often result in a catastrophic meeting of the two minds during many young people’s first experiences. Talking about sex is embarrassing; not least with someone you have just had it with, so these issues often go unaddressed through no fault of either party.

At best this is disappointing, but at worst leads to a toxic spiralling of escalating anxiety and miscommunication. The argument against education on these more explicit areas of the subject is that detailed sex education from a young age promotes underage sex and teen pregnancy. However one of the only countries which has actually put this into practice, Holland, has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe, which is coincidentally six times lower than Britain’s statistics who rest at the opposite end of the league table.

In fact, Holland should be seen as a quite extraordinary inspiration in this area, with classes including discussions on consent, expectations surrounding pubic hair, and girls being sent home with mirrors and mini vibrators to encourage sexual and anatomical exploration.

While this step forward should be celebrated, we also need to acknowledge that as a culture we are desperately lagging behind in all areas of sex and relationship education.

We feel the horrible repercussions of both men and women’s sexual ignorance in bad sex, awkward conversations and genuine trauma throughout our adult lives.

Could Friends be any more problematic?

3

Friends is the sitcom classic which in many ways defined a cultural era. But in the same way the quintessentially 90s haircuts and fashion seem out of place in 2018, so too has the era’s taste in humour suffered from the passing of time.

Since Friends was released on Netflix earlier this month, millennials have expressed reservations about many of its storylines. The show is often transphobic, homophobic, and outright sexist; many of the recurring jokes give a stark and unforgiving reflection of a less socially progressive era.

Friends is far from a bastion of diversity, and from this, humour is often cruelly derived from anyone who doesn’t fit the ‘copy and paste’ casting method of white, straight, middle class characters. Viewers will remember only two notable non-white characters in the show, Charlie and Julie, neither of them last long enough in the series to make a significant impact.

The most notable criticism is probably the show’s often blatant homophobia and transphobia. Chandler is paranoid about being perceived as gay, the concept of a male nanny forms the basis of an episode tinged with homophobic undertones, and mean-spirited jokes about Chandler’s transgender father, Helena, are a staple for the show’s iconic wedding episode between Monica and Chandler. Correct pronouns are dismissed with little thought, Monica describing Helena as ‘the man in the black dress’ to the delight of rapturous canned laughter.

On top of the racism, sexism and homophobia, Monica was never allowed to forget she was once overweight. “The camera adds ten pounds!” she says in the episode titled ‘The One with the Prom Video’, to which Chandler responds: “so how many cameras are actually on you?” Her weight is a constant source of mockery, the writers consistently assuming that audiences will find the concept of fatness inherently funny.

I was a young teenager when I began watching Friends. The cast were charismatic, attractive, and the supposedly ideal image of young adulthood. But re-watching Friends, the humour often appears cheap. What once felt witty now provokes tangible discomfort, the kind you experience when forced to spend time with a particularly ignorant grandparent.

It calls into question what the purpose of comedy is, does it have a social or moral purpose? Do we have an obligation to call out insensitive jokes, or merely take them on the chin and view them through the more informed social lens which we can derive from our now more progressive social landscape? It’s good for audiences to demand more from their TV shows. Shows with the success Friends experienced over its ten year run permeate the cultural consciousness, and often what we find funny is a reflection of what we find acceptable in society.

The influence of TV shows doesn’t end when they are taken off air, they evolve into similar cultural incarnations, like How I Met Your Mother, and The Big Bang Theory. Joey’s sexism is reincarnated into the form of Barney Stinson, both labelled as ‘womanisers’ but more accurately described in this context as a term for men who objectify women.

For this reason, it’s important we remain critical of the way different genders, sexualities and races are depicted on screen. The perpetuation of stereotypes is damaging, and when your identity becomes the punchline to a mass audience, it no longer feels like innocent fun.

The Kardashians have made millions from misogyny

0

This week, after months of social media silence and furious guesswork from fans, Kylie Jenner released an intimate, home-video style film, entitled ‘To Our Daughter’, announcing and charting her pregnancy to the world. Her new instagram of baby Stormi Webster has become the most liked image on the platform.

Suddenly everyone wants to see if Kylie will retreat from public life – and everyone has an opinion about whether or not she should. The Kardashians shouldn’t be anyone’s feminist heroes. Kim, came out as a feminist to Harper’s Bazaar last year, despite previously shunning the label. She may use her platform for shining a light on homelessness (a recent Keeping Up episode raised over a million dollars for LA’s homeless problem), police brutality, and the struggles of the Armenian people, but the others, (particularly the younger ones) are frequently and consistently problematic.

Kendall and Kylie have in the past year spawned hundreds of angry tweets and think-pieces about their regular cultural appropriation, selling bizarre T-shirts with their faces superimposed upon those of dead music icons, and, of course, that infamous Pepsi advert. And Kim’s nude photos shouldn’t need to be called feminist. She’s so jaw-droppingly sexy that while posting a selfie may shift our beauty ideals away from Kate Moss-skinny, her body is no less unattainable a goal for an average woman. Posting them shouldn’t be a radical or political act. Except, of course, they are, because the vile wave of misogyny that seems to follow every post means we must debate the ethical value of her tits.

As long as they’re attacked for enjoying displaying their bodies and their wealth, that display and that very existence becomes political. Kim now accompanies some of her selfies with blog posts about slut-shaming. Kylie, the youngest and quietest, is yet to develop Kim’s activist streak. But she’s also perhaps had the toughest time – since she was 15 she’s been compared to her supermodel sister, often branded the ‘uglier’ of the duo. As anyone with sisters would know, that’s your worst nightmare. If the same were to happen to me ,I’d probably go into hiding.

But Kylie didn’t: she got lip fillers, and used the media furore and outrage about her newly-plump pout to create a lipstick and cosmetics brand that’s now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. In fact, she’s predicted to be a billionaire by 2022. I don’t think anyone expects the Kardashians to really stop caring about material wealth. They shouldn’t have to – they’re brilliant businesswomen. In fact, our reaction to Kylie’s brief absence from the spotlight says far more about us than her. Despite outrage at their social media presence, so many still crave the Kardashian brand, and why shouldn’t they profit from a patriarchal industry which, for want of a better phrase, ‘loves to hate’ them.

But whether or not Kylie retires from public life or continues her life full of cameras and cosmetics doesn’t matter. The Kardashians aren’t radical feminists and they don’t want to be. But what they have done is turn a sex tape leaked without Kim’s permission into a billion-dollar brand, and given America a First Family of powerful, ambitious women whose love for their family, and sheer, unashamed exhibitionism make them – if not role models – people I can’t help but like.

The changing face of the Virgin

0

In 1997, Chris Ofili’s mixed media painting ‘The Holy Virgin Mary’ arrived in New York as part of an exhibition of Charles Saatchi’s personal collection.

A British artist of Nigerian descent, raised as a Catholic, Ofili had depicted the Madonna as black, exaggerating her features to play off racial stereotypes.

She is surrounded by collaged images that, up close, reveal themselves to be pornographic photos of female genitalia, and her one exposed breast is fashioned from elephant dung.

The image was condemned as an attack on Catholicism; Mayor Rudy Giuliani termed it “sick stuff” and threatened to cut funding from the museum unless “the director comes to his senses.”

Several months after the exhibition’s opening, a 72-year-old schoolteacher vandalised the piece with white paint because he considered it blasphemous. Ofili’s focus on race, physicality, and bodily functions provides a new conception of the Madonna, one that both contradicts and updates traditional iconography. In 1999, Ofili stated that “Religion should be used in an appropriate way… the Church is not made up of one person but a whole congregation, and they should be able to interact with art without being told what to think.”

‘The Holy Virgin Mary’ may then be seen as a necessary and natural evolution of the conventions of religious art, rendered more “appropriate” for a more diverse and multicultural society which prioritises freedom of expression. While the painting’s objectors consider its unorthodox physicality a “sick” attack on religion, Ofili may be seen instead to be working within a new conception of Catholicism, one that allows for multiculturalism and permits racial diversity in the representation of its divinities.

Donald J. Cosentino classes Ofili as a ‘Hip Hop Catholic,’ along with Warhol, Mapplethorpe, and Serrano. Cosentino suggests that his religion is a progression of Catholicism, because it works from and translates religious tradition in the light of contemporary values, as well as issues of race and gender. In 2014, the painting returned to New York as part of the Chris Ofili: Night and Day exhibition at the New Museum, without the protests and vandalism that dominated its first appearance; the shock value of Ofili’s reimagined Madonna had subsided.

Massimiliano Gioni, who curated the show, observed that “in art, any transgression eventually gets absorbed and digested…what was shocking at one point becomes normal after a while.”

Ofili and his ‘Holy Virgin Mary’ worked towards a reinvention of traditional religion which combines doctrine with modern culture and politics. Despite the shock that this reinvention initially generated, its essence will eventually be assimilated into norms of art and religious depiction, which, hopefully, it has already helped to make broader.

‘New Year, New Diet’ – but will that fad diet do you any good?

0

‘You see, I just want to lose weight this year, so I’m trying this diet. You won’t believe how easy it is, literally all I have to do is skip breakfast and lunch, then and eat a high fibre, high protein, low sugar, low carb, low fat, vegetable-only low sugar, high protein, low fat, only vegetable meal for dinner!’

It’s a cliché that we’re all aware of, and one we’ve probably bought onto ourselves – the New Year’s diet. Magazines published at this time of year are rife with articles showing minor celebrities boasting of how, by using THIS one simple trick, they shed five pounds in two weeks, and YOU CAN DO IT TOO.

Shops sneakily move their ‘health’ products to the front of their window displays, and juice companies surely worship the time of year when people drink their product in droves, for the sake of ‘cleansing’ or ‘detoxing’ their bodies (spoiler alert: that’s what your kidneys are for).

The fad diet is an integral and inherently problematic part of diet culture, and has only been made more pervasive as an institution in recent years with the rise of social media. Are there any benefits at all to participating in these diets?

The short answer is no. While the pros and cons have been heatedly debated from many angles, there is little to no actual science to support the idea that fad diets are anything but fads. The NHS warns against using diets that exclude certain food groups, or encourage the over-eating of others, and that are reliant on almost immediate results. And the British Dietary Association releases an annual ‘diets to avoid’ list, in order to prevent pseudo-scientific diets from gaining traction.

The problem, however, is that these institutions are not recognising the more insidious way that fad-dieting culture has moved into our lives. No longer are diets such as the ‘only cabbage soup’ type promoted, but instead many now claim to have scientific or homeopathic backing, and companies are spending large sums of money paying celebrities who are often completely uneducated on such issues, to promote them.

The notion of the ‘insta-babe’ selling us her favourite ‘skinny tea’, or the reality TV star demonstrating their ‘before and after’ results from a 5:2 (or intermittent fasting) diet, has become ubiquitous. But the real issue isn’t whether or not people choose to use laxatives, or decide to skip breakfast most mornings – the fundamental problems with this type of dieting and diet promotion is that they are hinged on the idea of weight loss, rather than encouraging a healthy lifestyle, and they suggest that other aspects of our lifestyles – how often we exercise, whether we drink, what types of food we normally eat – are lesser factors than the supposedly more effective, faster solution.

In reality, there isn’t anything that wrong with deciding to mostly cut out carbs, or to spend a few weeks – sensibly – restricting your calorific intake. But there is something wrong with failing to acknowledge, as most people do, that this short-term fix has to be supplemented by a longer term, and much harder, lifestyle change.

For those of us who have suffered from an unhealthy relationship with food and our bodies, fad diets present a concerningly tempting way to disguise much deeper problems. The implication of a diet that tells you to cut out certain food groups is to create a notion in your mind that some food is ‘bad’ and other food is ‘good’. The only way that food can be categorised as ‘good’ is if it will make or keep you thin. In reality, it’s just not healthy to create a mindset that ruminates over the calories and sugar content of every food item.

These diets contribute to an already incredibly toxic ‘diet culture’ that has made society obsessed with their bodies – especially women. The thinly-veiled misogyny that exists in this industry must not be ignored. It’s rare that fad diets are targeted towards men. The classic image of a ‘healthy’ woman is one who wears a size six pair of running leggings, has a perfectly toned stomach, and who is preferably chugging a glass of green juice every two hours. Now, I’m sure this woman is healthy, but the image that she is promoting to thousands of women and girls just isn’t.

Whereas men’s magazines typically tend to focus on encouraging guys to hit the gym and eat nutritious and balanced diets, women’s magazines are some of the biggest culprits when it comes to creating this toxic atmosphere. There is so much subliminal messaging – the suggestion that ‘to be thin is to be happy’ is displayed without those words ever having to be used. It comes from beautiful, lithe and seemingly happy models who seem to be needlessly participating in said diet. It comes from social media-based companies who target you by using language like ‘babes’ and ‘chicas’ to form a kind of corporate faux-feminist bond with their consumer base.

In order to contribute to the promotion of a healthy lifestyle, it is necessary that fad diets are recognised for exactly what they are – short term and usually ineffective solutions that can be incredibly detrimental not only to one’s physical health, but to their mental health as well.

There would be little point reiterating the messages sent out by health organisations regarding the cons of fad-dieting; these are almost as clichéd as the diets themselves. What really matters is educating people properly on nutrition and encouraging an active lifestyle from an early age.

This particularly applies to young girls, as by the age of 10 anywhere from 50-80 per cent of young girls in western countries will have tried a diet. This just isn’t right. I’m not condemning using a specific diet in accordance with a pre-existing healthy lifestyle, but the culture and the society which suggests that diets should be undertaken without the necessary research and consultation, and in pursuit of the wrong aims, should be.