2013-05-21T04:11:37-04:00 Kiran Kaur http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=kiran-kaur Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Kiran Kaur Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2163957 2012-11-20T07:16:32-05:00 2013-01-20T05:12:01-05:00

Kiran Kaur http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kiran-kaur/
The claims were put forward by Carrie Paechter, a Professor of Education at Goldsmiths, University of London. Speaking at the Girls' Schools Association conference in Liverpool, Professor Paechter said: "While we should be pleased that many girls are proud of their bodies, we should have some concerns about what aspects of their bodies they are taking pride in."

In a world where some young girls maintain a careful consideration of the closest source of light for that 'golden glow' before taking a photo and rely on Instagram's subtle editing tools for their version of 'post-production', I can't help but agree with the Professor's arguments.

Focusing on Instagram in more depth, it is more so a truth than a rumour that many teenage boys use the site to view model-like photographs of the opposite sex. These girls often use the photo-sharing programme as something more, far beyond an editing tool, it is also a tool to say "I can be pretty too, just look..." In many cases the photos speak for themselves. This is one social network of many that is simply encouraging vanity among young people - the use of 'young' seems to be getting younger.

It's an age-old issue that's dominated discussion for years among concerned mothers who have "innocent" and "impressionable" young daughters. However I personally feel it's getting worse. Name a reality show today that doesn't consist of at least one girl sporting her latest cosmetic procedures or at least her latest lashes, extensions or 'falsies' of some kind - yes, it's a hard task. The irony is that these reality TV programmes are far from realistic.

We are constantly bombarded with messages in society that suggest, either directly or indirectly, that 'young' and 'sexy' go hand in hand. The new Kingsmill advert is a good example and it's already stirred up some controversy. The 30-second commercial has prompted a barrage of complaints from furious parents who have accused the company of "sexualising" children, in particular, young schoolgirls.

The advert consists of a teenage girl wearing her school uniform, or lack of it. Viewers see the girl's younger brother sharing a message from her father regarding his concerns about the length of her skirt - a fair point from any caring father. To rub salt into the wounds, the advert ends in the girl pulling her skirt up higher, sporting a provocative pose. Initially when I heard about this controversy I thought it had all got a little out of hand and that some were simply exaggerating. However, thinking about it in more depth, the glamorisation of a young girl appearing as a 'sexy schoolgirl' is clear for all to see. Surely such presentations are what we do not need or appreciate, especially considering the ongoing Jimmy Savile controversy. Was this really necessary to advertise bread?

This example links in to another aspect of Professor Paechter's argument in how it has become the norm for children to upload photographs of themselves posing provocatively on social media sites. For an easily influenced young girl who sees such representations of her generation and gender on television, it is no surprise that some feel image over education is the priority when at school.

We've heard the size zero argument all too many times before but it appears the issue has now shifted slightly, despite it still unfortunately falling into the same category: young girls and body image pressures. However, is the argument now that girls are emphasising certain areas that they may not have even developed yet? With programmes such as The Only Way Is Essex, it's hardly surprising that there are many girls wanting to edit their image, just like how the women they see are permanently editing themselves on a regular basis with their latest cosmetic treatment or procedure.

Rather than use the programme as a scapegoat, it doesn't take a genius to work out that any material of this kind, presenting such dumbed down females, poses a great danger. The short-term impact may be hilarious yet thinking about it in the long run, I simply feel it's a tragedy for society and particularly young girls who will be hit hardest.

I appreciate Professor Paechter's argument and I firmly agree that social networks are not helping the situation. It seems the media's presentation of female role models is simply 'Retweeting' the problems that social networks create in regards to body and image pressures upon young girls today.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2044414 2012-10-30T19:24:57-04:00 2012-12-30T05:12:01-05:00

Kiran Kaur http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kiran-kaur/
As a result of Hurricane Sandy, the current Caribbean death toll is greater than the current US death toll although news coverage would suggest otherwise. There are already victims yet the focus is on the prospective fatalities - namely in America. Some may argue that the lack of coverage is due to the "small death toll". Death is shocking but in order to hit headlines, it seems the greater the better. Perhaps this is what the British press are expecting from Hurricane Sandy hitting America: a higher death toll = attention-grabbing headlines = greater sales. I believe it's chilling and even ghoulish that the greatest death tolls appear to be the ultimate indication of how big the story is, in specific locations.

According to media researchers Galtung and Ruge's news values, the news often tends to place a heavy focus on elite people and nations. Considering this, can we assume that the US is receiving more coverage because it's essentially more powerful? Is it a case of the more money, the more we see? I appreciate the UK's close relationship to the US but surely its relationship to the Caribbean can't be ruled out too. This brings me to yet another news value: cultural proximity. The UK has a large population who originated from the Caribbean, they understandably may be distraught, upset and in search of answers - answers the British press fail to be providing.

Another argument is that the destruction in the Caribbean was on a smaller scale than what is expected in the US. Yet it was still a disaster, so why wipe it out from the news agenda? Surely accessibility cannot be the sole excuse? I appreciate that the British press may have more correspondents based in the US yet that's hardly justifiable. If a reporter feels it matters, the content should be reported to inform audiences on a national scale, with or without a correspondent's input. This under-reporting of the destruction caused in the Caribbean may suggest it is simply unimportant to the British press.

There are so many other large-scale natural disasters that have parallels in regards to this tasteless favouritism. Take the tsunami. I remember so many headlines that picked out the Westerners. For example, one Daily Mail article stated 'We can't die like this: UK survivors tell of terror killing Tsunami amid fears for 16 missing Britons'. Despite the scale of the disaster, many have questioned whether there would have been less coverage of the 2004 Tsunami if there had not been such a huge amount of Western holidaymakers present. The story was essentially regarded as more important by a number of American and British news organisations because of the Westerners so heavily involved, this helped to drive the coverage. This is arguably the case with Hurricane Sandy as Westerners are at the centre point of where the hurricane is expected to hit next.

At this point it is important to re-emphasise McLurg's Law: 'One dead Briton is worth five dead Frenchmen, 20 dead Egyptians, 500 dead Indians and 1,000 dead Chinese.' This 'rule of journalism' suggested by a legendary British news editor has a clear UK focus but it also suggests that the press favours Westerners above all others - Westerners often defined as British or American.

You only have to search the 'Caribbean' Twitter hashtag to find out more details of the tragic events yet why should people have to turn to Twitter rather than mainstream news programmes? Personally, I think it is a tragedy in itself that the British media have chosen to sideline the impact of the disaster caused. It appears to be a case of 'moving swiftly on' to what is more newsworthy, this coincidentally happens to be in America. These updates via social media are regarded by many as a form of news so, if it's an issue on Twitter, it again raises the debate over why such content has not been featured in more traditional news.

From all of my frustration, I have one vital question: why is it up to the British press to determine whose lives are worthier than others? In fact, so worthy that those who are alive in the US are receiving more coverage as 'victims' than those who have tragically died in the Caribbean.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2008293 2012-10-24T07:48:50-04:00 2012-12-24T05:12:02-05:00

Kiran Kaur http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kiran-kaur/
The images that will go on show tomorrow at the Oxo Tower Gallery were captured by former RAF officer Alison Baskerville. Now a photojournalist, earlier this year she spent six weeks in Helmand Province embedded with a battle group after being commissioned by the Royal British Legion. Alison told me she felt it was important to present a gender balance in her images. She said: "I have served on the front line myself and I know that it is no different for a man or a women in the heat of the moment."

I agree entirely with Alison's argument. If there is equality between men and women within offices during the working day, then why not on the frontline - it's a career for many, discrimination should be non-existent. The same working rules should apply and both men and women should feel equally comfortable.




Not everyone can fight on the frontline, a number of physical tests have to be carried out beforehand. If a woman 'proves herself' by successfully completing the required series of tests, then why shouldn't she be representing our country - the biological make-up between a man and a woman then becomes irrelevant.

I personally feel Alison captured the essence of my argument within her photographs, particularly one which presents a female soldier carrying out washing duties alongside her male colleagues. They are all in shorts and the woman is wearing a bikini top while the men are topless. Are the men perversely staring at the woman's chest, making the most out of the rare treat to their eyes? No. In fact they're not even looking at her, they're too involved in their own duties. What has to be remembered is that in these circumstances whereby you're more likely to be killed than in any other career path, you begin to see those you work with as just another live and well human being. Boobs and bums - rather irrelevant when you've just saved a colleague from a near death experience.

This is why I find it so frustrating when I hear poorly judged and ignorant arguments including 'stress can lead to sexual frustration and therefore can act as a distraction from the job.' This goes beyond undermining women and equally undermines men. It also evokes the argument: can men and women be friends? This is an irrelevant and completely insignificant discussion within society today. Men and women's ability to work alongside one another should not be questioned and if it is, it doesn't say much about the human race.



I admire how the similarities between men and women have been captured to present both genders as equivalent to one another. However, I also appreciate how simply Alison Baskerville manages to portray the life of a woman on the frontline. As Alison told me, "There needs to be a balance and also the work needs to be put into context. Not having pictures of the women on patrol will not allow the viewer to see what the women are expected to wear. To take that element away and show the woman underneath we must first see what they look like before we lift the mask of the uniform." Just because you are on the frontline, doesn't mean you have to suddenly morph yourself into a banter-full ladette or an emotionless macho-man. You can have your aromatic oils, your favourite moisturiser, your feel-good scents and all the other little treats that contribute to looking and feeling like a lady. Alison captures this perfectly in one image which presents a number of cosmetic products stacked up on a table - yet they don't escape the dog tags laid next to them or the military uniform evident in the background of the shot. The message: as a woman on the frontline, you can't have one or the other - yet this is a choice, a choice that a woman can make for herself.



Women have always been banned from serving in units whose job is 'too close to the kill'. As a young woman, I feel frustrated and offended by this fact. I hate that women are viewed by some as a hormonal bubble of emotion who, if placed on the frontline, would begin to edge away and perhaps even hide behind their male colleagues. This is wrong. Women are equally as emotionally stable as men and in some cases, even more so. Statements suggesting otherwise are demeaning. I personally feel Alison Baskerville's new exhibition presents this perfectly, an array of images which will offer you a meaningful insight into what it is to be a woman on the frontline. On this, Alison told me "I really want the public to come and see a very human and feminine side to female soldiers on the front line." In fact, her selected images tell us that, just like many of us women, female soldiers are lovers of Downton Abbey, they have comfort teddies lurking in their bed and they value the importance of a perfect pedicure. More importantly, the exhibition allows us to appreciate the success of British women: whether it be in a bank, in a hospital or, for the women featured in Alison's photographs, on the frontline.

Alison Baskerville's 'The White Picture - The Hidden World of Women in Combat' will be exhibited in the Oxo Tower Gallery from tomorrow, October 25, to November 11.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1978938 2012-10-18T09:29:40-04:00 2012-12-18T05:12:02-05:00

Kiran Kaur http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kiran-kaur/
Last month, Sikh24.com published an article regarding the Head of the British Sikh Association's 'Kirpan attack'. The article alleged that the Chairman of the Association, Dr. Rami Ranger, had called for a ban of the Kirpan. Sikh24.com then corrected their article, confirming that Dr. Ranger was calling for a reduction in its size and not a ban, as had previously been falsely stated. The website, along with some others, also printed an email sent from Dr. Ranger to the President of the SGPC (Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee) calling for this reduction which created a debate over the validity of the Kirpan today. Within the email, Dr. Ranger specifically highlighted how 'it is also a fact that many terrorists resemble us in their appearance, so why give a chance to anyone who may easily mistake us as one of them.' I do not feel that Sikhs should have to adapt to modernity, specifically the current climate of fear against 'foreign terrorists' within the UK. This misconception undermines the UK's appreciation and understanding for religion today.

Lord Sebastian Coe wrote a letter to the Sikh Federation earlier this year confirming that Kirpans were allowed to be carried when attending the Olympic Games. In the letter, the Chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games wrote 'The Sikh community has played a major role from the outset of the bid to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games here in London.' When there is clearly such acceptance and understanding of the Sikh community and their faith, why would Sikhs today have to adapt to modernity? There isn't a reason. As a young Sikh woman, I do not agree with the banning of the Kirpan or even a reduction in any way. I appreciate what it means to practicing Sikhs to carry the Kirpan as it is one of the five Ks - the five physical articles of faith worn by baptised (Amritdhari) Sikhs. I wanted to discuss this further with Dr. Ranger in reference to the comments he had made however, he did not wish to answer any of my questions and only tried to steer me away from writing about the topic. I appreciate that he may not have wanted to answer my questions considering the backlash he received following his call for a Kirpan reduction. Sikh24.com reported on an apparent outrage among the Sikh community following Dr. Ranger's request. One Sikh24.com representative, Rav Singh, believes Sikhs are completely integrated and play an active role within British society today. He said: "I think Sikhs are adapted to the modern world like any other community." This is a statement I can appreciate.
I feel it is frustrating when words or actions occur that aggravate such peace.

According to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, carrying the Kirpan is legal within the UK. This does not include misuse and if it does, it is not a Kirpan that is being carried by the perpetrator. This fact should not be viewed as a loophole in the law for perpetrators to justify their criminal actions when carrying a weapon. Kirpans should never fall into the same category as a weapon. Such associations blur the meaning of the ceremonial dagger as well as the meaning of the religious item. The history behind the Kirpan is extremely powerful. Considering we live in a time where the meaning of both culture and religion can often become so diluted, I feel the Kirpan is more valid than ever and it is an honour that it can live on with pride by those who carry it. The Kirpan's meaning translates as the 'hand of kindness and mercy' - this speaks for itself.

I believe there is no reason to question the existence of the Kirpan or its size. I may be a third generation British Sikh yet I remain insightful and yes, when I wear my Kara (a steel bangle) which is another physical symbol of faith worn by Sikhs, I wear it with pride. Finally, while I am not a baptised (Amritdhari) Sikh and do not wear a Kirpan, I want to firmly know that if I, or one day even my children, ever choose to take this path they could do so with society's understanding and respect.]]>