Body shaming against smaller sizes, RE: Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass

It makes me sick that we currently live in a period of time where body shaming is such a hypocritical, ironic, massive issue. To dare slate curves, big bums, thick thighs, large stomachs and plus sizes in 2014 would be immediately deemed irresponsible, anti-feminist, discriminative and "everything that is wrong with society" - but yet, it is quite literally only voluptuous, curvaceous bodies that are portrayed as empowering, beautiful and womanly; despite the fact that most of these bodily attributes are actually a build-up from a result of over indulgence in unhealthy diets, specific exercises to achieve particular features e.g squats, or surgery e.g implants. Not that there is anything wrong with modifying your body to look the way in which you wish it to, as everyone should be classified as beautiful, despite what is natural and what is "normal" and what society's stereotypical standards are. But, what is more powerful than embracing all body types, including natural petite frames and thigh gaps, small breasts and bums, and flaunting them with the utmost confidence that they deserve?

Why is it that it's only the fuller, "stereotypical sexy" bodies that are seen as positive today? to insult a size 16 girl for her hips would be blasphemy and result in 50+ blog posts on "Body Shaming And The Effects On Women And Why We Must Love All Bodies" plus 3000+ tweets flooding in, hurling abuse at the original poster of the said statement, yet its perfectly acceptable to ridicule girls who don't have protruding bums or shapely, wide hips?

Body-shaming and body positivity are both a two way street.

A song, "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor, was recently released and has since been played worldwide - a popular watched hit on Youtube, as well as being played in public high street shops etc.
The lyrics include:

"Yeah it's pretty clear, I ain't no size two
But I can shake it, shake it like I'm supposed to do
'Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase
All the right junk in all the right places"

"Yeah, my momma she told me don't worry about your size
She says, boys they like a little more booty to hold at night
You know I won't be no stick-figure, silicone Barbie doll"

"I'm bringing booty back
Go ahead and tell them skinny bitches hey"

I fail to see how this is a responsible message to send out, to a wide audience of millions of viewers - both women, men and children of all ages. How is it positive to objectify women and their worth to what "boys like"? who on earth cares what size of "booty" men like to hold at night? is that all women are worth? are we really belittled to such a minuscule amount of value to the point that we have no use or anything worth offering other than body features that are pleasing to men? Songs should not be glorifying this sort of mentality, and then acting as though they are being a positive role-model or empowering to women, because this is quite literally the opposite. Putting down someones size, whether it's a size 20 or a size 2, is unacceptable yet this song receives applauds and respect as though everyone is oblivious to the fact that it completely slanders a dress size. But because it's a smaller size, it's okay right? Why are women "supposed" to shake it? who made up this rule? yet again, succumbing to society's backwards "music video" mentality that women are obliged to act and look a certain way and do certain things such as shaking their arses. also, no one is qualified to deem what the right junk or right places are. Using adjectives such as "stick-figure, silicone barbie doll" and "skinny bitches" is bringing such negative light to an entire body type.

When I tweeted about the irresponsibility and insensitivity of this song, I was hurled abuse by it's appreciators and "fans" of the artist - one of which was from the U.S and apparently a mentor who works with troubled adolescents including those with eating disorders, who told me I must have an eating disorder by loving my thigh gap and having an issue with this "positive" song. Perfect correlation of the song and it's audience/demographics - small things for small minds.

Humanity and regulation

Why do children and teenagers have to go to school? Answer: "to be moulded into the Government approved homogeneous drone that will disable you to think outside of the prescribed consensus and curriculum. If you think outside of the box, you will fail. If you question anything you are told or undermine any sense of authority, you will fail. You will learn to repeat information instead of learning how to think independently for yourself so that you do not threaten the status quo and norms of society. You will graduate, get a job and pay your taxes in order to perpetuate the corporate system of indentured servitude. "

Currently airing on British television channel C4, is Educating Yorkshire - a documentation of the outcome of cameras being placed in a British secondary school over the period of a year. A secondary school in Essex, the county that I live in, has previously partaken in the programme and it is apparent that there are plans to record various secondary schools across Britain; as the secondary school that my Uncle teaches at, Heathcoate School, based in the sub-urban London district of Chingford, was offered to participate in a series of "Educating Heathcoate". As aforementioned, the schools are offered £15,000 to allow Channel 4 access to record the school for the period of a year. Although my Uncle's school thankfully declined, there are many secondary school's that will happily accept in the hope of receiving positive feedback and boosting publicity for the school. 

However, it seems that although allowing viewers an insight to the running of British Secondary School's may have some mildly humorous aspects, it is in-fact, more alarming than anything else

Tweets under the hashtag #EducatingYorkshire include:

"For the whole programme the teachers defend the bullies and the bullied boy blames himself for reacting to bullies? #EducatingYorkshire"

James Buckley, English actor and musician, tweeted about the programme twice, quoting:

"Watchin #educatingyorkshire wrong mentality, its nt the responsibility of bullied kids 2 learn 2 put up with bad treatment. Punish bullies!"

"It's the schools failure for not stopping the bullying #EducatingYorkshire"

Aisleyne, reality star, actress, columnist and media personality wrote:

"I'm watching Educating Yorkshire on 4+1 and I'm fuming with the dumb blonde bullying that poor boy :( I HATE BULLY's the damage is so painful" - Aisleyne, reality star, actress, media personality and magazine columnist 

Best-selling author and psychologist, John Amaechi OBE said:

"'#EducatingYorkshire is hard to watch... If this is what passes for "handling bullying" (or anger management training) then I despair..." 

Other tweets also include:

"They're punishing him for standing up to his own bullies! #Educating Yorkshire" 

"Watching Educating Yorkshire makes me lose faith in humanity"

It is clear that the way secondary schools are run, both throughout Britain and across the world, is distressing.When entering "school makes me" in Google's search engine, it autocompletes with suggestions of: 

"School makes me depressed"
"School makes me suicidal"

School makes me sad"

and

"School makes me nervous"

Surely this should raise enough alarm and question in order to change the way in which today's youth are educated? 

Children need to be taught about humanity rather than academia.

Children need to be encouraged to be a good person, instead of how to be a successful business owner. 

Children need to be taught how to think independently, instead of how to follow rules and regulations. 

Children need to be educated on culture and sexuality - helping them to disregard all prejudice and discrimination from an early age, instead of algebra.

There needs to be more focus on creative subjects that will allow their minds to grow and create a positive vent for their emotions and feelings, such as the arts and Literature, rather than subjects consisting of  "facts" from fifty thousand years ago. 

Religious Studies should be an option, not compulsory. Appearance needs to be less of a big deal. Why does it matter what a student is wearing, if it is not hindering the performance, mind or learning? Why is it okay for the "ordinary", if you will, students to dye their hair with "natural" colourants such as blondes and browns however the "unusual" students who prefer creative, bolder colours such as reds, pinks, greens and blues aren't allowed? 

This world is so caught up in routine, normality, business, politics and money that the majority of the world's population have forgotten what we are on this Earth for, and also, how long we are on this earth for.

The average person lives for up to 28,385 days. How you wish to spend it is entirely up to you. 

I personally believe we are on this Earth to make it the most pleasant experience for ourselves and those around us. So, bus driver, you can choose not to let the homeless man on the bus because he doesn't have sufficient funds to pay the fare. You're following the rules and regulations handed to you in the guidebook. Well done. But when your time is up - your work is not going to come with you. Your money is not going to come with you. They will continue in the circle of life. Someone else will replace you in your job. Your money will end up at thousands of other banks, in the wallets of thousands of other people, passed from person to person in exchange for goods, services, trade. To end up who know's where? a vending machine, a child's birthday card, a charity donation box... 

But you are your soul; therefore your soul will be accompanying you to the grave, to the beyond, to the heavens or the hells, what ever you believe in. So ask yourself again, what is more important? Following the rules of a job you're most likely only in so that you can continue to exist, or making someone's day and life that bit easier and restoring their faith in humanity?

Man sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. Then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present of future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived. - Dalai Lama 

Share your comments below! 

Why I hate school but love education

A few months ago, I watched a video of a young adult, Suli Breaks, titled "Why I Hate School But Love Education" in which he was performing an act of Spoken Word; which is an art that is word-based, often including collaborations or experimentation with other forms of art such as dance. The video was explaining that Suli had come to the realisation that education and school are not necessarily the same thing, despite having completed a University degree himself.

Suli quotes:

"Education is about inspiring ones mind not just filling their head” and take this from me, because I’m a educated man myself, who only came to this realisation after countless nights in the library with a can of Red Bull keeping me awake 'til dawn , another can in the morn, falling asleep in between paws of books which probably equates the same amount I’ve spent on my rent, memorise equations, facts and dates, write it down to the letter, half of which I’d never remember, and half of which I forget straight after the exam, and before the start of the next semester, asking anyone if they had notes for the last lecture? I often found myself running to class, just so I could find the spot on which I could rest my head and fall asleep without making a scene, ironic because that’s the only time I ever spent in university of chasing my dreams.
And then after nights with a dead-mind; identifying myself in the queue of half awake student zombies waiting to hand in an assignment, maybe that’s why they call it a dead line. And then after three years of mental suppression and frustration, my proud mother didn’t even turn up to my graduation."

 I found this extract of the video to be particularly powerful as I came to the realisation myself, that education and school are not the same.

 Education is learning what is valuable to you as an individual depending on your personality, your interests, your dreams and goals. School is being taught to memorise irrelevant pieces of information, putting yourself under extreme pressure whilst juggling the struggles of meeting a coursework deadline, getting enough sleep in order to function adequately, ensuring that your own physical and mental health is okay, attempting to have some form of a social life in order to feel human and making time to making time to be with your family and loved ones.

 As humans, our level of intellect is decided for us in the exact same manner that animals are - by how well we follow orders.

We are taught that we will only be successful in life if we pass the exams that are thrown at us. Who are taught by? Society. Including teachers, members of authority, parents, family, MP's, Prime Ministers, Politicians and many more. Why? Because they were taught the exact same thing and know no different. Ask David Cameron when the last time he used the pythagorean theorem in Parliament and I'll rest my case.
David Cameron did not wish to quality in the field of mathametics, for David Cameron's goal and fate was within Politics. So if a students personal goal and strength is within the field of retail management or owning their own clothes stall in a hippie market somewhere far away from their hometown, why are they made to feel like they will amount to nothing if they don't pass their Geography exam?

"Everybody is a genius. But, if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend it's whole life believing that it is stupid." - Albert Einstein, one of the world's most intellectually renown individuals, who was in fact, dyslexic.

 Examiners are given a checklist of what is right and wrong; if a student is to think outside of the box and provide examiners with an answer that requires thought beyond the approved print of their checklist, the student fails. Teaching a generation that expanding their mind and thinking beyond the usual horizon is wrong is completely unhealthy. 

What do you think? Share your thoughts and comments below.

Should Baroness Thatcher's funeral have really been at the expense of tax payers?

Yesterday was the funeral of Lady Margaret Thatcher, Britain's "iron lady", first female prime minister and an incredibly strong-minded politician.

Thatcher's solid and unwavering political choices, also known as "Thatcherism" earned her nicknames such as "Thatcher Thatcher The Milk Snatcher"- supporting the fact that it is of great awareness that her policies were majorly contraversial, leading to extreme unpopularity; especially amongst the working class of Britain.

Although some may argue that Thatcher saved Britain economically and had a sense of control that today's politicians lack, many people were not in favour of her "balls of steel" based choices such as closure of many mines and factories resulting in unemployment and poverty, the discontinuation of milk for children in primary schools and nurseries which had helped families on a lower income, privatising companies, selling council houses (resulting in a shortage) and many more.

However, should the cost of the funeral really have been funded by the tax payer? At a steep amount of around £10m, surely Britain is in need of other essentials rather than the funeral of a Politician who surely had enough savings to pay for it herself?

As stated in an article in the Guardian, the funeral cost could have funded the wages of 322 nurses for a year, 272 secondary school teachers for a year, 320 fire officers for a year, 269 paramedics for a year, 177,777 jobseekers' allowance claimants and 44 libraries.

What are your thoughts? comment below!

Boston Marathon

Firstly, I'd like to send my prayers out to all of those affected by the horrible, sickening crisis that is the explosion of the Boston Marathon.

There are many issues that have come to my attention this evening; firstly starting with how anybody could be so alarmingly cruel minded to the extent of violently sabotaging a charity marathon for a previous mass shooting in a school in Newtown. Although there is currently no confirmed source of proof leading to the explanation that the explosions were the deliberate actions of a terrorist organisation, ball bearings have been found which leads researchers to believe that they are shrapnel, a type of bomb, which adds to the suspicion that the explosion was deliberate.

We should be looking out for each other in unity, comforting each other through natural disasters such as earthquakes or the inevitable natural death of those we love and so on - not inflicting yet more pain upon each other.

What has also particularly grinded my gears tonight is that, as aforementioned, there is yet no confirmed source of the culprits, if any, of the explosion however I have seen many ignorant opinions claiming that Arabs and Muslims are behind the entire "attack". Is this what we have come to, as a society? We have been successfully fed by the syringe of the media, who conveniently only cover the cases of Muslim supremacy and not the unknowingly common supremacists of Christianity, Judaism and many more.

Also, how come it is the case that nobody is ever interested in world affairs until they become widely recognised and discussed? Half of the oblivious Tweeters and Facebook-ers have most probably never even read an entire newspaper before however they're extremely fast to jump on the band wagon as soon as it is a trending topic.

What are your thoughts? Share your comments below!

Do curfews keep teens out of trouble?

It's a widely renown topic of debate: Do curfews keep teens out of trouble and off of the streets? Or does it backfire and result in even more rebellion?

Some believe that by giving teens a fixed curfew of what time they must be home by, whether law enforced such as in many US cities, or simply decided mandatory by their parents or guardians, that it will help to keep teens off of the street and out of trouble as they will be in the safety of their homes where they can be supervised. 

Due to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour being a result of boredom, perhaps reducing the amount of spare time teenagers possess to hang around on street corners could help to prevent crime and trouble.

However, does trouble really have a time frame? Surely if teenagers wish to do something, they'll go right ahead and do it anyway regardless of what time of day it is?

In fact, some argue that creating a curfew will make teenagers angrier and increase their determination to rebel, as due to a lack of trust from parents and society, they feel that they may as well do something wrong anyway - which is proven in the following statement, as quoted by a teenager:

"As  a teen, I know that if I am going to do something illegal already, then a curfew law will not stop me from doing so. In fact, a curfew makes me upset and actually makes me want to break the law. I do become craftier in my illegal ways to conduct my activities. This law completely back fires on itself."

The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and the US Department of Justice all agree that a curfew, in fact, does not lower youth crime rates and interestingly, the number of youth arrests made for breaking curfew laws are greater than the number of youth arrests for any other crime; therefore proving that curfews do not have an effect.

So is it the responsibility of parents to teach teenagers the difference between right and wrong and make sure that they are authoritative enough with their child in order for them to be home on time without having a curfew? Perhaps teaching teenagers elaboration of morals would be more effective than telling them what they can and can't do.

Personally, I believe that setting a law enforced curfew to teenagers is a rather fascist movement to make. The Government already control almost every other aspect of our lives; but the freedom of teenagers? Too far. If a parent wishes to set their child a curfew, that is entirely up to them. However, I for one, would be absolutely livid if a curfew law was enforced in my city. How are teenagers ever meant to prove society wrong when all we are given are motives to prove them right and rebel anyway, seeing as we are already perceived as juvenile delinquents and "ASBO's"? 

What do you think? Are curfews an adequate method of decreasing youth crime and trouble or is it pointless? All comments are welcome!

The Illhueminati: a brand new lease for the writers of this generation?

Being an over-thinker, I tend to have a lot of thoughts. Most of which, I kept to myself... until I decided to make a private, anonymous twitter account, separate from my public account, in order to vent and rant with the comfort of my identity being concealed from my friends and peers. It was then that I discovered The Illhueminati; which I am now a member of. The Illhueminati (not to be confused with The Illuminati) is a Twitter community of writers and artists with solid colours or hues (hence, illhueminati) as their twitter icons. Members reject image-based culture and instead focus on the important of self-expression, making a point not to judge anyone and remembering that it is not what you look like that matters but instead, what you write, say and do.

I have always loved writing in many forms including short stories, essays, points of views and blogging in particular, as I've had many blogs from a young age. However, recently I've taken great interest and enjoyment in voicing my thoughts through poetry after being inspired by other members of The Illhueminati. 

One of my poems posted under The Illhueminati hashtag being:

"Despite a lifeless, corpse-like sense to my stationary physical being
my cluttered mind continues to race at a hundred miles per hour
refusing to stop for anything or anyone
despite my own powerless protests
the enemies that are my thoughts
remain flooding the already-full sea of my mind
imprinted, fixated
lik a permanent reminder
a constnat reel: my own personal cinema
however this is one film that I do not particularly wish to watch"


So is this online community a brand new lease for writers of this generation?

On Twitter there are a lot of anonymous accounts belonging to teenagers with mental health issues such as depression, eating disorders, self-harm addictions, etc. confiding within each other regarding issues that they feel they cannot voice to people around them in real life. Therefore The Illhueminati encourage teenagers to express their sadness and difficulty through the art of literature and turn something potentially destructive into something beautiful, giving each other meaning and hope.

With tweets from members such as:

 "i think the #illhueminati family is the first to actually accept my sexuality everyone else always ignores it and acts like it's a phase"

 "The meaning of life is to give life meaning. #illhueminati"

 It is evident that the optimism of The Illhueminati is helping teenagers today even more so than parents, friends, counsellors and doctors - solely by simply reminding each other that life is worthy of the difficulty that they may endure and that the world is beautiful.

Also, there are not many ways a budding writer of today can practice their skills within the company of other like-minded youths, therefore it is great for those who are wishing to enter the field of writing in the future.

With a lot of negative media attention focused on teenagers today, I find that positive stories such as this should be published more frequently, as teenagers deserve more recognition than the "juvenile delinquents" that they are stereotyped as.

Do you believe The Illhueminati is a positive influence for the teenagers of today? all comments are welcome!

To read more from The Illhueminati, search the hashtag #illhueminati on Twitter.

Happy Easter!