The complexities of men's rights

Source: humanresourcesonline.net

We are currently submerged in an age and society completely fixated on gaining a sort of “equality” for women. It is rarely considered that men need a men empowerment organisation similar to that of women, yet it is becoming increasingly necessary.

Whilst it is true that women face far more obstacles in achieving top job positions and are almost always judged for their decision to choose to or to choose not to return to work after having a child, it must also be recognised that men suffer disproportionately from suicide, and have significant disadvantages concerning parental rights. Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) are vigorously working to let these issues be heard and be treated as just as important as the issues facing their counterparts. It is important that, in a world where “feminist movements” occupy most of the world’s attention, that we do not diminish one gender in order to elevate the other.

To truly understand the purposes of men’s rights and why they are so crucial, now more than ever, we must understand the complexities of advocating for “feminism”. The true meaning of “feminism” has become so lost and miscommunicated as new events concerning the freedoms of women surface and more people try to push their version of it. Most typically the “feminist movement” is viewed as a movement in which women’s rights are improved to match those of men.

The issue with this approach is that believing “feminism” aims to make women equal to men in society automatically assumes that men have it all and have essentially reached the most ideal culture and way of life, when that is anything but true. If we really want to achieve any sort of improvement for women, we must first acknowledge and address the problems that men encounter and move past this ridiculous idea that women are working to obtain what men already have, when, in reality, we don’t want any of it.

If the message behind the “feminist movement” is to “develop the woman experience to match that of man” then wouldn’t success mean that women feel less inclined to express their emotions in a public way? Wouldn’t success of the “feminist movement” mean that women legally and socially have less influence in the parenting of their live and unborn children? Wouldn’t success mean that far more women become the target of gun and knife crime across the world?

These factors do nothing to contribute to the improvement of the female experience. So, when we say that we want to become “more equal” to men, do we mean all of this, or just the parts that suit us. How can we expect to fight for all the “benefits” of being a man, yet refuse to acknowledge the “benefits” that we as women have, and are therefore desirable to men?

This is where the purpose of Men’s’ Rights Activists becomes evident. MRAs aim to highlight all the parts of what it means to be a man that aren’t attractive to women or those striving for total equality, in order to help better the male experience. So much time is spent considering how women suffer but it is just as important to flip the coin and see the opposing issues regarding the other party. Just as we (women) desire the certain perks of being a man, perhaps there are similar desires regarding men. Perhaps men would like to experience dating without the social pressure of having to pay for everything, despite whether or not it turns out to be the case.

Discussing what men would like to achieve does not come without complexities however. Take family law for example. MRAs protest against the alleged bias against fathers yet men were the source of this. Family laws were not written by women. Policies were not developed by women. The patriarchal society that men now despise so much was not created by women – it was orchestrated by men.

Practically everything that is unjust about today’s society was essentially created by the men in power in the past, including the problems facing men themselves. So why should women strive to be just like men? We have, in effect, painted the male experience to be the ultimate goal that women are supposed to be wanting without realising what that would actually mean for us.

Having considered all this, my understanding of “feminism” is that it is a movement and idea about moving towards liberation for women, an escape from the controls of the patriarchy, and with the dismantling of the patriarchy comes liberation for men. Women cannot resent men for seemingly having it all because in reality they are not the blueprint that we want to replicate. The aim here is to break down the oppressions created by the patriarchy to both parties.

The aim is to develop a society in which men are not constricted to the ridiculous template of what it means to be a man, and where women are no longer positioned as the ultimate insult to men. Feminism and MRAs share the same goal – total liberation to make the human experience far more positive and beneficial.

Thank you for reading!

Aman

The threat to press freedom in India

Source: indianexpress.com

Since 1992, there have been the deaths of 68 journalists recorded in India and the number seems to be ever climbing.

Press freedom has reduced further and further across the last decade and this year India dropped by two ranks on the press freedom rankings put forward by ‘Reporters Without Borders’ down to number 138. India has never been a safe haven to journalists and reporters but what we are currently witnessing is the beginning of a society that are becoming more and more afraid to speak out against global and national injustices in fear of the consequences that they may face.

The birth of a society so invested in the deaths of media persona, had most considerably sparked after the death of Gauri Lakshmi in September of 2017. The journalist had been a known critic of the right wing and consistently voiced her opinions towards the declining democracy that India is currently experiencing. Consequently, she was shot dead outside of her home in Rajarajeshwari.

The initial reaction to this incident was the mourning of hundreds of Indians for a woman who had represented and exposed the injustices they had faced. But this soon evolved into a trend of seeking out more victims who would suffer the same fate. The killing had initiated a wave of social media trends all focussing on how this particular murder would be sure to begin the trend of silencing media individuals. Eventually social media users, political members and so called “nationalists”, had curated a sort of “hit list”, targeting all those who had essentially stepped out of line regarding their work.

The death of Gauri Laneksh had served as an example to journalists seen as “antinationalist’s” and over the last year has created a series of assassinations. This has seen the deaths of numerous journalists and reporters including: Santanu Bhowmik, reporter with the Din Raat news channel, KJ Singh, editor of the Indian Express, alongside his mother, and most recently Shujaat Bukhari, editor of the Rising Kashmir.

The irony of the situation is that those carrying out the killings and threats claim to have the blessings of the Indian Prime Minister himself, and as if to almost show his support and praise he is known to be following several their twitter handles. All of this is occurring whilst Narendra Modi claims to be fighting to maintain and uphold the state of press freedom in India.

In instances where media individuals are not killed, they are made to endure severe public humiliation and threats. This is evident in the case of Rana Ayyub, an independent reporter working in Mumbai. She has faced multiple death threats and was the victim of public humiliation when her face was edited into a pornographic video and then shared with her friends and family in a bid to stop her from investigating and then reporting. Whilst Modi and his government made light of the situation, it was the UN who had reportedly called upon India to protect the journalist from coming to harm. As of yet, the Indian police have failed to respond to her complaint and prosecute anyone.

Every week multiple pleas are made to the Prime Minister to finally act on his plans to better the welfare of the media. Unfortunately, in addition to these appeals being blatantly ignored, Modi and his BJP spokespeople have denied such anti-social behaviour even occurring, especially of those whom he follows.

Essentially, whilst the UN have begun to show initiative in protecting individual reporters, there is a large amount of responsibility to still be taken. When Western reporters encounter even the smallest amount of danger, it is made public news to the world immediately, but in instances where journalists in small towns are endangered, the media community and officials need to put far more pressure upon the BJP to change a seemingly toxic democracy in India.

Thank you for reading!

Aman

The evolution of athlete activism

Source: adrianbrandon.com

The practice of athlete activism dates back hundreds of years. Sportsmen and sportswomen have a long-dignified history with using their platforms to provoke social change and spark dialogues regarding the controversies surrounding the sport, organisation and country they may represent.

The power of sports has remained a force to reckon with, whether that be the fabled football game between the German and British WW1 troops, or Ivory Coast’s Didier Drogba who used the 2006 World Cup to unite his nation once again after civil war.

Today the influences of an athlete are just as strong but are now acknowledged by millions of more people globally.

Currently the most well-known example of athlete activism is undeniably the anthem demonstration movement associated with National Football League. In 2016 former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers Colin Kaepernick evoked a firestorm of protest by choosing to #takeaknee instead of standing whilst the US national anthem was played as an action against the racial injustice that exists in the United States, especially in regards to police brutality. He has since been released from his contract as part of the team and is consequently now under the position of a ‘free agent’.

Evidently it was the NFL’s position that Kaepernick’s purpose in sports was to do nothing but play and he had stepped outside of his limits. In a previous case of protest against the racial injustices relating to the US, evident during the Black Power Salute of the 1968 Olympics, the individual was also rejected from the sport and organisation and subjected to extreme criticism.

This stands to support the claim that athletes, especially Black athletes, are simply expected to just ‘shut up and play’ and will be reprimanded for choosing to do otherwise. As a result it may be suggested that the state of the Black athlete is somewhat torn and conflicted. It is expected of them to turn in their voice and morals in exchange for the fame and riches.

Source: solacilike.com

Eventually with continuous backlash comes the media’s perception of events and how they choose to display such information to the wider public. As a result of wider reporting and publications, wider issues have come to surface, issues surrounding the true meaning of the national anthem and the possible disrespect Kaepernick and other #takeaknee supporters have shown toward the US military. The actions of the social media and publications have also led to a variance in why Kaepernick kneels. Some perceive it to be an act in protest of the Trump Presidency whilst others see it as simply a way to support the NFL players. Sadly, for those people Kaepernick’s original objective has been lost amongst all the controversy and misinformation.

What is different about this case of athlete isolation, however, is the reaction of billion-dollar brands, particularly Nike. Their campaign, celebrating 30 years of the ‘Just Do It’ slogan, employed Kaepernick as the face, alongside athletes such as Serena Williams and Odell Beckham Jr.

Immediately the campaign was met with waves of criticism and even prompted many to burn or destroy Nike branded products that they owned as part of the Nike Boycott.

Source: wmagazine.com

But aside from the irrational and essentially futile actions of critics, this movement stands out as a noteworthy change in the usual dynamic between the choices of an athlete and corporate sponsors. In the past many sponsoring brands have pulled out from deals with athletes who choose to speak out against political issues, in fears that damage to the athlete’s reputation would be then reflected upon the brand. Yet Nike have gone completely against that tradition and have instead chose to highlight such a current affair. Nike have made the conscious and powerful decision to not terminate the sponsorship deal that have had with Kaepernick since 2011.

It goes without saying that regardless of Nike’s motives towards racial injustices, their decision has significant implications towards how its brand is received by the public. Nike are aware of what their consumers are exposed to. They are also aware of the growing interest in politics that is developing in their main target market of young people. This decision wasn’t made on a whim and definitely wasn’t carried out by those who are not experts of the marketing world.

Ultimately, Nike could not have chosen a better time to show their support for Kaepernick and draw in those consumers who are more politically aware and influenced by what brands believe.

Nike may have been hit by a small drop in stock immediately following the release of the campaign, but that is completely insignificant in comparison to the major and long-term attention and respect that the brand has gladly welcomed.

Outside of Nike’s own sales and stocks, the brand now serves as a prime example of just how important it is to stand by athletes, a move that is likely to be mirrored by other sporting brands and sponsors in the very near future. This itself has made athlete activism much more of a force to be reckoned with and has evidently shown the NFL that if it desires a long-term solution to the controversies it will eventually have to embrace the social justice initiative.

Thank you for reading!

Aman

The men of #MeToo

Source: theguardian.com

We are currently in a gender and sexuality crisis. Since its launch on October 2017, the #MeToo movement has led to the discovery of hundreds of men responsible for sexual harassment, significantly those in the public eye. However, has any tangible solution really been reached?

The #MeToo movement and those standing behind it often tend to place their focus on the experiences of the victim, in most cases the woman, but perhaps it is time to consider what role men play in this. Perhaps it is time to understand that all men, guilty or not have an effect on the outcomes of such situations and make society understand these responsibilities.

Everyday we see new headlines of men in top positions - whether that be in Hollywood, in politics, or in sport – come out, exposing their behaviours towards women. That’s at the top. Both media and society as a whole ignore the everyday, and almost normalised, attitudes towards both men and women that breed these behaviours.

The #MeToo movement has brought around the fears of demonising all men. The truth of the matter is yes, there are activists and women behind this movement that believe they are fighting this evil that is the patriarchy and that is men. There are those who demand the utmost public support for the movement, otherwise they will begin to assume you are guilty as well. But what they are not understanding is that this is not just a problem that belongs to men and the way they conduct themselves – it is a problem that belongs to all society, because it is society that teaches young men what is and isn’t appropriate.

Almost every stimulant used in our daily lives is somewhat built around the objectification of women. We see the large proportion of men involved in the entertainment industry coming out as responsible for sexual harassment but fail to make the connection that the products of these people are what our society is exposed to. Unless we become very specific, very adamant and very intentional with young people, they are being taught to be misogynistic and we are not even aware of it.

We have the sayings such as “bros before hoes” or the “girl code”, rules that we are inundated with at a young age. Ultimately these rules teach us to value someone or trust someone over another person just because of their gender, rather than treat the situation independently. Having been exposed to this attitude during school years, it then develops and breeds silence in the situations of sexual harassment – situations where men do not challenge other men regarding their actions simply because of the “guy code”.

What we are also taught from a young age is that it is the responsibility of the boy to “get the girl”. We see it in cartoons, Disney films and this notion follows us as we get older. She becomes something to be had. Even just the phrasing of it, “getting” women or girls, takes their agency out of the situation, eliminating what they may or may not want and therefore suggesting that the man’s needs are the only needs to be satisfied.

Source: todaysveterinarybusiness.com

When a male shows interest in a female, and sexual conquest is not their goal, it is either assumed that they are lying or even more commonly their manhood is questioned. This then leads to the isolation of that particular male. You can see how attitudes towards relationships with women have evolved just by looking at the changes in the language and terminology that is used. What once was “I want to hit that” has now become “smash that”. What is evolving here? Violence and misogyny and that is what young people are now being exposed to. How can they grow up and think this is inappropriate when this is what they are taught during their developing years?

Essentially society has created a majority of “good men”. These men may not be committing actions like rape or assault that are deemed illegal, but these things do not happen without the involvement or permission of the “good men”. All men create the collective socialisation of manhood. There are very few men who see these behaviours against women happening and make a conscious effort to stop it. Having said that all women cannot be given a free pass at this either. It is the responsibility of all. Good people are a part of this.

This brings me to understanding what is the difference between a “good” man and one who should be considered guilty. There is a very thin line and ultimately, but unfairly it often depends on how the law is defined and employed. You could be responsible for some awful acts and still be on the side of the law, and therefore, still be accepted by society. “Good” and “well meaning” men, are considered as such for as long as they individually are not harassing anyone - but is it fair to not challenge atrocities that the individual witnesses and yet still hold that label of a “well meaning” man?

We should be encouraging men to see themselves as valued. How can we expect them to value and respect women without teaching them to respect themselves first? That isn’t the most political view but it is definitely a solution. Change can start once men and all people learn to be okay with being uncomfortable. What is necessary is for people to challenge and interject the behaviours.

Thank you for reading!

Aman 

Who really builds the World Cup?

Source: thetelegraph.co.uk

As the World Cup enters its fourth and final week, critics, organisations, and those watching at home have commended Russia for their hosting skills, especially for providing such beautiful grounds for the matches to occur. Yet very little is said of how the stadiums were built – more specifically, who built them. What many football fans are unaware of is that the stadiums built for this World Cup probably would not exist without the thousands of migrant workers, particularly those from one of the most oppressive and controlled countries, North Korea.

In the lead up to the 2018 World Cup 9 stadiums across Russia were built or redeveloped to join those existing and make up the 12 stadiums to host the 64 matches of the World Cup.

The largest venue, Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, stands at an 81,000 capacity and, having hosted the opening game, will also go on to host the final.

Luzhniki Stadium is just one in a long list of stadiums that have become the site of many migrant worker deaths – deaths which have been overlooked and ignored, simply due the fact that they are of migrants.

The process begins in North Korea, a state infamous for the complete lack of social, economic, and political freedom. Those lucky enough to escape and defect find it difficult to land on their feet after having lived within such a blanketed community. The lack of skills, education, awareness combines to create an individual incapable of producing their own independent thoughts and opinions. This is the perfect target for business gangs operating within the corruption of the government.

In other cases, the DPRK may select certain individuals to go out to these sites and work in order to bring back money to the country. This is as a result of the dramatic and complete decline of hard currency within the DPRK following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic barriers the Kim Dynasty have set up between themselves and the rest of the world. This then becomes one of the very few ways to bring money back into the country – money that will not benefit the individual but instead be used to fuel the propaganda and maintenance that the DPRK so heavily relies upon.

In the case of the 2018 World Cup stadiums, migrant workers are sourced and employed from third party groups, separate but not completely independent of FIFA. Deals are made between the employer and the beneficiary (usually the DPRK government and any connections in between). The workers are completely neglected from this process and are simply told lies of what their salary will be and what they will be able to do with it. Most workers are promised a salary large enough to support themselves comfortably with enough to send back home to their families who may remain in North Korea.

The reality however, is very different. Flexible hours become daily 20-hour shifts, protective clothing is now out of the question, and workers are considered lucky to even receive 10% of the original sum. Instead the money goes back to the third-party organisations and the enters the corrupted cycle between Russian gangs and the DPRK to facilitate the development of North Korea, including its nuclear development. What is left of the workers’ salary is withheld from them, allowing bosses to choose when and where they can spend, should they wish to grant them that opportunity. What once seemed like an opportunity to better their lives essentially evolves into a complete violation of human rights.

Those who question or challenge what they have been subjected to are usually threatened with the safety of their families back home or sent back to North Korea where they and their family will suffer punishments as a result.

Despite a law passed early in 2013 which aims to prevent World Cup employees to be abused in such a way, tens of thousands of North Koreans still suffer the same fate, therefore questioning both Russia’s and FIFA’s commitment to human rights issues. Though these companies may be third party companies separate to FIFA, it seems unrealistic that FIFA had been unaware of what was going on years before.

FIFA’s response has remained the same. They will “continue to follow up any allegations made with regards to human rights violations”. Yet the exact same thing is happening in Qatar, only worse.

Source: namibian.com.na/Home

Qatar will host the 2022 World Cup and has already been subject to death tolls far greater than Russia. FIFA continually promise to monitor the construction sites in Qatar just as they had promised to do so in Russia but there are inevitable shortcomings; assessment visits are planned and announced in advance, giving companies the opportunity to hide anything that may indicate the violation of human rights, and FIFA then go on to publish very little, if any, of their findings, offering no indication if situations have improved.

Over the years thousands of deaths have been reported by the Qatari government, the deaths of workers from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, and India. Almost all are said to be from causes that officials have chosen not to explain or investigate whilst others are simply dubbed as having occurred from natural causes which is clearly not true.

The World Cup isn’t going anywhere, the money it generates is far too great for this to even be considered, but FIFA needs to take some responsibility for the rights and safety of those who work to create the tournament. FIFA President Gianni Infantino has since admitted to the severe abuses of human rights in regards to the North Korean workers across Russia and many promises have been made to prevent risks to employees, but words need to become actions.

FIFA needs to be more transparent with their data. Their newly adopted human rights policy is just the start. Their newest policy regarding the rights of journalists and human rights defenders at the games is just as important. These progressions however, have only occurred because of the pressure that the public put on FIFA. The pressure needs to remain to ensure that the World Cup does not become a human rights free zone.

Thank you for reading!

Aman

Demonising children has become the new method to avoid responsibility

Source: mprnews.org

Last week, hundreds of thousands of people came together in protest marches across over 700 US cities in a reaction to the recent surface images and recordings of children suffering separations from their families and being kept in cages.

These images taken from detention centres and holding facilities across the American borders and immigration centres circulated global media, causing international outrage and disbelief.

The US Governments response to these rightful criticisms?

Simply deflect any responsibility and present these children as threats to the state.

Admittedly the US Government have acknowledged the issue and have released their own photos and recordings from a children’s detention centres, but only in efforts to push their own narrative. Their footage clearly kept teenage boys at the foregrounding, hiding girls and young boys, suggesting that the administration would never detain such children.

Yet images released earlier show that this demographic within detention centres that the Trump Administration is so insistent upon is not a reality. Hundreds of immigrant children have been separated from their families regardless of whether they are girls or boys, or even if they are toddlers.

Though the Administration has made efforts to redeem themselves in some way, by choosing to only show children of a certain age or gender, they have split children into two different categories: kids deserving of sympathy, and kids who are not so deserving – because, in fact, the Government does not see them as kids at all. Teenage boys are being stripped of their youth and childhood and propelled into the identity of a “grown up”. From this they are then likened to “men”, “immigrant men” who pose as nothing but a threat to the state. By doing all of this the Trump Administration are working desperately in order to push a different narrative and motivation, and, in turn, justify their cruel decision to separate and then detain children.

This is not the only issue. On top of picking and choosing who deserves the identity of a “child”, the US Government seem to want to decide whether this is a human rights issue or an issue regarding the security of the nation.

By pushing the idea of threatening teenage boys, the Government have insisted on a sole motivation of protecting America, offering no protection and therefore no maintenance toward the keeping of human rights for these children. These concepts that the government creates regarding individuals like these, will eventually go on to materialise into social attitudes, where American citizens are fearful or hostile towards immigrants. Attitudes like these spark racist viewpoints and prejudice. Separating children into those deserving of protection and those who are not creates a mentality amongst society where people will begin to pick and choose who deserves which privileges and rights based on their age, gender and background, and occasion after occasion it is those teenage boys who are deemed to be capable “men” and therefore discriminated against.

Now, as hundreds more continue to march, protest and campaign against social and legal atrocities such as this, it is important to remember that we are fighting for all children suffering separation and detainment, regardless of age and gender, and then for all adults, no matter what their racial or religious backgrounds. Human rights activists consider all as deserving of the right to seek asylum and safety in a respectful and just manner, something the Trump Administration should perhaps evaluate once more.

Thanks for reading!

Aman

We should be talking about the gender of mass shooters

Source: abc15.com

The Noblesville West Middle School shooting this week was the 23rd mass shooting to take place in a school in 2018 - meaning there has been at least 1 school shooting every week in America this year.

Every headline surrounding these 23 tragedies, as well as those that have come in previous years, have focused on the same attributes of these killers. We are immediately told that they come from the US and are most commonly informed on their racial and ethnic backgrounds. Whilst the gender of a male is assumed by many, it is rarely, if ever, disclosed and made explicit. Virtually every mass murderer, be that at a church, school, or cinema, has been male, a fact that is largely overlooked. 

The US channel their focuses, headlines and campaigns on access to guns, mental health, social safety and the culture of shooters, whilst the rest of the world regurgitate the very same ideas to their own national audiences. Almost everything is considered but the gender the shooter. 

This can be difficult to understand as gender has become an evaluative point for almost every issue of modern society. 2018, whilst it has seen back to back tragedies, has also been witness to an arena of conversation surrounding gender, whether that be the gender pay gap or the #MeToo movement. Gender now plays such a central part to all social issues yet media is reluctant to address the gender of these shooters.

We are yet to see media talk about a "male mass shooter", yet it is almost guaranteed that should there be a woman carrying out these acts, the concept of gender would lead every address towards mass shootings and would feature in every headline.

Her being a female would be seen as a definite factor towards her actions and her role as a female would become her most identifying factor. This is an example of where her femininity would trump her nationality and possibly even her racial backgrounds, and there would essentially be a separation drawn between male and female shooters. 

Any culture that simply refuses to recognise the importance gender inequality and the well beings of young men will only continue to produce wounded men, a fraction of which will become violent. 

Thank you for reading!

Aman

The victimisation of drill

source: trenchtrenchtrench.com

Recent weeks have seen an ominous increase in the number of stabbings reported in London, the rate currently standing at its highest in a decade. Last year 80 individuals were fatally stabbed in London a statistic that is likely to increase considering 50 people have died due to stabbings already this year.

Politicians, officials and critics have failed to explain the reasons behind this indiscriminate epidemic, instead, in their state of panic and unreasoning, have shifted blame to the soundtrack currently dominating communities and cities throughout the UK: drill music.

Having first developed in Chicago from artists such as Chief Keef in 2010, drill music soon travelled across the Atlantic into South London, where younger generation individuals seized the opportunity to perhaps distance themselves from the genre of grime that preceded them.

Drill has, in the past, been largely ignored by mainstream media but is currently coming into its own, with the increase of radio plays, millions of streams, and the constant influx of high profile names as a result. The increase of attention being paid towards the rampant and often harsh style of music has meant that the media have now embarked on the journey to place sole blame on the music and the careers that it has launched for condoning and encouraging violence.

Having considered lyrics and key themes characteristic of the genre, it is clear that drill music does not have the intent to soothe listeners or become a family favourite. It is packed with an endless list of slang for weapons, particularly knives, methods of cooking up drugs, and ways to secure illegitimate money for spending on high fashion brands. Having said this, however, it does not mean to encourage or glamourise the culture that is unfortunately an inescapable reality for some. Beneath the harshness of their words, drill artists often speak the ultimate truths of what they have experienced or seen others experience.

This is where the governments neglect reaches an all-time high. Rather than addressing root causes of stabbings and a gangster mentality, the government and media are instead looking at a by-product of the problem as a way to get rid of it – something which is completely unfounded. There exist far more problems and causes immediate to the influx of city stabbings, problems such as poverty, Tory austerity, and the policing towards the discrimination of races and classes.

America are constantly criticised for the laws they put on guns and how guns may be accessed and used. In turn countries like the UK, boast far greater restrictions on guns, yet ultimately fail to acknowledge that while guns may be a smaller problem, weapon access remains crucial.

Time and time again, it is ignored that knives are the weapon of choice in the UK. Access to them is ridiculously easy and efforts to put greater restrictions in place are nowhere to be seen. Whilst it may be true that guns account for far more deaths in terms of mass killings, the fact should not justify the increased stabbings occurring in the UK.

Despite this all, drill music is being used as the ultimate scapegoat for failings in the UK government's own regulation of rules, security and consequently safety.

source: m-magazine.co.uk

Rising star, Headie One, has been particularly singled out for his style of rampant music, yet holds the conviction that artists are being wrongly accused for what happens to be their reality. This goes on to speak volumes about the politics leading this motion as failure to acknowledge that this harshness and attitude reflects the reality of Headie One and hundreds of young people throughout the UK remains.

Considering the topic of media platforms, and how they may incite behaviour, brings my attention to the recent backlash Puma experienced regarding their ‘House of Hustle’ event. The event was heavily criticised for the atmosphere created through the use of invitations inviting guests to “trap”, burner phones acting as props and many gang references sprayed upon the walls.

It is obvious to all that Puma is a largely established brand with a complex network, far more complex than the network of artists making music. Up and coming drill artists, on the other hand, are far more independent, therefore carrying less of the responsibility. They do not yet have a brand big enough to accept the responsibility of influence and should therefore not be expected to do so.

Surely it is far more unforgivable for a worldwide brand, with no immediate ties to the harsh realities of drug culture, to then go and glamourise drug use and dealing than those who have witnessed first-hand experiences. Puma essentially endorse something that is material, something that is tangible, at least far more tangible than the lyrics of a song.

It seems that mainstream media have yet again fallen into the habit of picking out the easiest community upon which to place the blame. Once again, the blame has fallen into the laps of the black community. Year in, year out they are criticised for producing the countries’ source of violence and crime, in the definitive act of crude ignorance. The increasing popularity of the music has set expectations and opportunities of building a career out of this music higher and higher, perhaps a financial reward for black Londoners who are classed among the lowest paid in the city. If anything, the music inspires others to follow in the footsteps of musicians in a musical means rather than in a violent way. Artists associated with the drill culture essentially reflect a means of success despite the hardships of life, the violence just happens to be a consequence of the reality that many are forced into.

Any inability to differentiate between the lyrics of a song, and orders to be followed, surely lies in the hands of an impaired education, parenting, and sense of society. There is no room for music to be held accountable.

Music that references violence is not a new thing to the UK, or the world for that matter, so how can something that has remained relatively unchanged, be held responsible for a spike in violent behaviours? 

Thank you for reading!

Aman

The spread of wealth inequality

Source: thedebrief.co.uk

The ‘American dream’: the idea that everyone, regardless of where they have come from, who they are, and what class they may belong to, can strive for a better and more comfortable life, provided they work hard enough. This ethos, so central to the United Sates, has since been adopted into the society of the UK and many western countries, and plays a major part in why so many foreign citizens choose these countries in which to start their new lives. Whilst America and these western countries claim the credits for the lives that have been turned around, failure of the ‘American Dream’ is most usually overlooked and more often than not, a lack of good, genuine, hard work is what accounts for these failures. What is overlooked, is something that has existed in America for generations, the difference between those who have a lot, and those who have very little – wealth inequality.

The wealth of an individual is determined by totalling the sum of their whole assets (investments, real estate, and savings) and then subtracting the total of their liabilities (credit cards and outstanding loans). It is important to understand the relation yet ultimate difference between wealth inequality and income inequality. Income inequality refers to the disparities between various revenue streams such as what an individual may receive as part of a salary, or the interest and dividends earned from savings. Whilst wealth illustrates what you possess, income reflects on the amount that you are receiving and in western countries wealth inequality is, unfortunately, far more surreptitious than the inequality of incomes.

Wealth disparities have for some time been a stark reality in the US, really propelling in the lead up to the Great Depression. By the late 1930s, the government had responded to the losses of the Great Depression and World War Two, launching policies that would help millions of veterans and family members finance for school and homes, beginning the establishment of a true middle class. In an example of racial wealth inequality, the black community at large were denied many of the benefits of these policies. The unemployment rate of black people, eventually became twice that of white people.

In America the racial wealth divide is very much still existing and has also prejudiced against immigrant families of other backgrounds. As of now, the majority of the Latin population in the US are either first or second generation immigrants. It would take the average Latin family in America 84 years to catch up to the wealth of the average white family household.

Source: thelily.com

In navigating the wealth divide, it is impossible not to consider an evaluation of the issue that is inclusive of gender. The gender pay gap is currently at its most sensitive worldwide, sure to make an impact on the future wealth statuses of generations to come, as it has done in the past. In America, exists the sad reality that a single woman in the US owns 32 cents for every dollar of wealth that is owned by a single man.

In Britain, the inequality of wealth is worsening between classes, regions, and generations and the nation as a whole is becoming a more unequal society compared to other European nations as well as its own past. This reality has been seen time and time again in real life events. The Grenfell Tower disaster not only resulted in tragic loss but served as a graphic illustration of how the lower class or less well-off communities are not listened to or paid attention to. So close geographically, but decades away in an economic respect to London’s uber rich communities.

Falling levels of home ownership in Britain were once great forces in decreasing inequalities. But now, the shifts in who owns what property, fuel the ever increasing wealth disparity between the rich and poor, whilst cutting new divides between young and old.

In 2013, the average total wealth owned by a single white man in America was $28,000 whilst single women held the average of $15,640. This is compared to the astoundingly low total of wealth of $200 for single black women. These figures have since been driven further apart in the last five years as wealth inequality becomes a problem that is harder and harder to ignore.

These consequences, once associated with the glory and hopes of the ‘American Dream’ are not the result of one group working harder than the other, or failure; it is the result of inheriting, or perhaps not inheriting, inter-generational wealth, essentially creating a completely unattainable ‘American Dream’.

Thank you for reading!

Aman