2013-05-24T04:52:21-04:00 Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=rebecca-myers Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Rebecca Myers Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2344324 2012-12-21T07:03:49-05:00 2013-02-20T05:12:02-05:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
However, this year, the men's calendar can consider themselves well and truly surpassed as, while the men's calendar has sold out, it was only the women's that made national news headlines. As my twitter feed filled up with articles from the likes of the Huffington Post and the Mail Online, I couldn't contain my excitement that a) the Rowing club had done so well to get so much press and b) that I KNEW some of them!! (every slither of fame helps an aspiring journalist, no?)

But a closer look showed less reason for celebration than I first thought. The national coverage has stemmed out of a backlash against the Women's Rowers, with commentators claiming the "tacky" calendar is merely "an attempt to gain notoriety" and that "[they are] just helping women to be perpetually viewed as sex objects". Calendar organisers Frankie Salzano and Hettie Reed have had to defend their charity work against slut-shaming and "watered-down pornography" insults.

Now, for those of you who don't know me, I am best defined as a Feminist on the Rampage. Out to root out sexism in every corner of the planet I find it, woman-on-a-mission style.

But I fully, wholeheartedly support the Women's Naked calendar. Let me tell you why.

People are funny. One minute they're all 'I wouldn't call myself a feminist, you're all so radical and petty'. Then someone gets naked for charity and they're all 'this is despicable, it offends my feminist principles'. I have many things to say to these people, a large majority of which are not publishable, and the remainder of which involve advising them to try saying they're feminists in support of 'No More Page 3' or in support of educating young girls to be body-confident, rather than in support of dirtying some decent, good-natured charity work.

What these girls are doing is not selling their bodies, or pandering to objectification by men. What these girls are doing is realising the power the naked female body has, and using that for a good cause. Men will ogle them anyway, they will spend years with people objectifying their bodies totally outside of their control, so why not take it into their own hands and do wonderful, world-improving good with it?

And it's not just about using the negative in this world for good. It's also a really beautiful thing. These girls are stunning young women, who have defied the media's determination to make them unhappy and anorexic, and instead are happy and comfortable in their bodies. There is no airbrushing in these calendars, no special makeup and trickster lighting, just a confident group of young women showing other young women that you can be really proud of how you look naked.

It is interesting, as always, to see that the men's calendar has escaped any slut-shaming comments or outrage. We haven't seen the men of Warwick Rowing lambasted for selling their packages. They've been getting naked for charity for four YEARS and no-one's said anything.

So, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I would ask those of you criticising the Warwick Women's Rowers to think first: if you have such strong principles about selling nudity, why is it ok for the men to do it, but not the women? Shouldn't you be splitting your anger equally? Somehow I doubt you will, because, as always, the sad world we live in, and the two-faced media we absorb, both cheerfully support anyone tending towards slut-shaming women.

I say congratulations to Warwick Rowing - men and women. Keep doing your great work, and keep being proud of your bodies. There are things more important in this world than a hint of tastefully-photographed butt cheek - things like the 76,000 people who die prematurely from cancer each year in the UK.

These calendars will raise vast amounts of money for Macmillan, at a time when the recession means charities are receiving less and less in donations. Perhaps the critics should come back when they've saved a similar number of lives from the horrors of cancer.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2094759 2012-11-08T16:08:03-05:00 2013-01-08T05:12:01-05:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
Sitting staring unsatisfied at my newspaper, that could only inform me of what it could not inform me, I was having to assume that roughly 50% of women were voting for Romney and the Republicans. How practically 50% of American women could vote in favour of such an overtly misogynist candidate was a mystery to me. Romney's electoral campaign was so vicious in its attacks on women's' health and rape victims that it led you to wonder if Romney had forgotten that Americans weren't voting in the 19th century.

As success of Obama (read: the overwhelming triumph from female voters) has proved, this presidential election boiled down to the fact that this president could - and, in Romney's case, was intending to - crush essential guardians of women's freedom, chance at equality, and prosperity. When the time came, the women of America were having none of it. Some of them weren't keen on voting Obama, but my god they weren't voting Romney.

The difficulty with America is shown in the stats: what we British may not fully grasp is that we are talking about a country where a staggering 51% believe abortion is morally wrong, and, even more concerning, 14% of people believe abortion should not be permitted, even if the pregnancy in question has been caused by rape (we are talking, of course, about a country where 'forcible rape' occurs every 6.3 minutes. And that's without factoring in all the rapes that are discounted by this worrying defining addition of 'forcible'.) Yet one in three women under the age of 45 have had or will have an abortion.

No matter how shocked you are by these figures, look even closer: what is truly shocking about them is the number of people they quantify. So 14% believe abortion should not be permitted, even if the pregnancy is caused by rape. 14% of the UK is just under 9 million people. 14% of America is almost 47 million people - around 70% of Britain. Can I, as a British woman, imagine living in a country where 47 million people believe that if I were to become pregnant from being raped I should be forced to give birth to that child, no questions asked? I'm fortunate enough that I don't, so I'll admit that no, I cannot imagine a country like that. The thought terrifies me. And the thought terrified the whopping 68% of single women who voted for Obama. A whopping 68% of single women who chose to hold on to that thing called control of their uteri, thank you very much.

We could also punch the air upon hearing that Todd 'legitimate rape' Akin and Richard ("pregnancy from rape is something God intended to happen") Mourdock, both lost their positions - and, soul-warming as a cup-a-soup on a cold day, Akin lost to a female candidate.

What American women did over the past days is something we Brit girls can learn an important lesson from. They looked at the Rick Santorum's declaring that birth control should be illegal (remember that? I'd almost forgotten - but yep, he actually said that), looked at the Todd Akins telling them the rape they experienced wasn't proper rape, and looked at the scores of male politicians constantly dictating what they can and can't do with their bodies, and they put their feet down in defense of themselves and their rights. Maybe we Brits should start looking at Jeremy Hunt and ask how it is he has suddenly such an extensive knowledge of how it feels to carry the responsibility of a child inside his uterus?

In the aftermath of this election it is only really the gnawed ends of my fingernails and the slightly haggard smile I managed as celebration that betray my deeply concerned emotional investment in Obama's win. It is only those chewed-up fingernails that betray the truth: that the ripples in the pond are often actually tidal waves. The UK have already seen a recent soar in anti-abortion action: if the other half of our 'special relationship', the country whose politics influence us the most, had elected an anti-abortion president, where would we be heading? The possibilities were indeed very real, and very, very scary.

Women of America, you have totally, utterly inspired me. Between bandaging my fingernails and sighing a huge sigh of relief, I can only think to say: you really really do go, girls.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1684233 2012-07-18T16:42:14-04:00 2012-09-17T05:12:07-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
"Oh, if only", I hear you sigh. You've got to page 250 and you could cut the sexual tension with a distinctly blunt knife, yet there's still not been a thigh brush in sight.

Of course, I wouldn't do HRH Ms Austen the injustice of suggesting Pride and Prej could do with a bit of sex to spice it up. Frankly, I get off much more on the lack thereof - explicit sex scenes wouldn't really fit with the deliciously enigmatic Mr Darcy. As I'm sure her genius knew.

However, it rather goes without saying that us bookworms often form particularly intense BUT DEFINITELY NOT UNHEALTHY OR OBSESSIVE relationships with protagonists of our favourite novels. Book clubs nationwide regularly turn into collective fantasy-exploration: women's knees jittering left right and centre just thinking of what Rochester could do to them on a cold, stormy night at Thornfield Hall, men dropping biscuits in tea at the very mention of Daisy Buchanan and Jordan Baker reclining on their sofas.

So what could be better than new adult 'Clandestine Classics' collection, a series of literary classics with naughty sex scenes added in? Dubbed the '50 Shades of Grey effect', some of the most revered of our literary heritage are being dusted off and heated up, including Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, Northanger Abbey and Sherlock Holmes. No longer does your mind have to multitask, reading the chapter whilst imagining Henry and Catherine in the throes of passion: the chapter will be Henry and Catherine in the throes of passion.

On principle, I can't say I have any particular issue with this enterprise. The company say they are "100% convinced" that there will be an audience for this collection, and I whole-heartedly agree with them. The unprecedented success of 50 Shades has done nothing if not demonstrate that what really does it for the Brits is combining two of our favourite things: books and sex. (What's that? "Speak for yourself", I hear you say?)

Grumbles against the project have suggested that "explosive sex with Mr Rochester" might cheapen Jane Eyre, and that it is sacrilege to deface the classics in this way. Firstly, I'd like to point out that we're being very British about this, and, just because it's sex, we're a lot more outraged about this than, say, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Which is effectively the same thing.

Secondly, I can't see any harm in upping the (sex) appeal of the classics to people who may not otherwise think to read them. Sexed up Austen is better than no Austen, in my opinion, particularly if her original prose remains intact. It may even turn heads to further exploration of literature's more traditional smash hits, and that can only be a good thing.

What will be particularly interesting is how they address the narrative style. They have been quoted as claiming the original prose will not be touched. However, it would take an accomplished writer indeed to achieve a smooth transition from the cutting witticisms of Ms Austen's social commentary into their own inserts, and it goes without saying that any prose lifted from the majority of the writings of the 'adult books' genre would jam a little awkwardly against such sparkling literary genius.

Furthermore, if readers of 50 Shades noted its grammatical inadequacies and distinct lack of stylistic flair when comparing it with nothing but its own sweet self, it would be entirely unreadable in comparison with the literary greats.

That said, this can only further the appeal of this collection to me. I enjoy sexy writing as much as the next person: the library scene in Atonement nearly got framed after I read it. And I enjoy watching people flail and thrash around in a whirlpool of grammatical faux-pas even more.

Put the two together, brew me a cup of tea and, hell, you'll have to pop my Out of Office reply on.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1546798 2012-05-25T16:39:27-04:00 2012-07-25T05:12:18-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
There were a few amputated fingers over the possibility that Lad culture was contributing more-than-significantly to the UK's binge drinking problems, and there was a soar in plaster sales around last summer when, nationwide, people over the age of 30 finally began to understand the boom in the tourist trade of Kavos, Napa, Malia and Zante.

I chimed in with a few "LAD!" declarations at the start. Come on - it was, after all, just a bit of banter. Sometimes it was a grunted signal of respect. That guy who downed three Irish car-bombs in a minute? LAD. I managed a half before the rest curdled.

But I joined in because I never, never expected it to get to the stage where rape was openly and explicitly condoned in an online article to hundreds of thousands of readers... and all in the name of the LAD.

A sick feeling in my stomach rooted itself pretty fast the afternoon a friend linked me to a Uni Lad article, in which they notified their readers that if a girl didn't want sex after a date, "85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds." With similar speed, the website was closed down and an apology issued. But a very, very frightening number of comments on their Facebook page simply said that those who had complained and got the site taken down should themselves be raped.

Trawling through Uni Lad and LAD Bible in the name of research, I've realised that I'm regularly feeling that kind of desperately uncomfortable nausea, and it started the afternoon I realised Lad culture and its banter had stepped completely outside the lines of rational, acceptable, human behaviour.

Possibly the comment at which my gag reflex suffered the most was the following Top Tip from Uni Lad: "Unfortunately, it's easy to mix up a chubster for a preggers, so you could possibly end up prodding a poor innocent foetus with your giant willy. At least you'll finally be able to claim a threesome."

For those of you who don't know, this idea is in fact plagiarised anyway, lifted from a rap song, the Creator of which is, wait for it... regularly criticised for inciting rape. Regardless of its origin, it remains the same: I don't know about you, but I don't know many friends of mine who fantasise about intercourse with an unborn foetus.

The top article at the time of my research was "Dating Tips: Uni Lad Style", which details the method that should be used to deconstruct a girls confidence to the point where "her insecurities have mounted" and "she'll be so relieved that someone actually cares that you'll have her in the palm of your hand" ready for "the appreciative sex she'll be sure to offer".

Other articles on the site have advised, for example, that in order to "knock some sense into her", you could slam a girl's head against a wall during sex.

It is the continuous flow of articles like this that plant the seed in young men's brains that women are merely objects to be thrown around and battered according to their sexual desires. It's "banter" like this that means 1 in 7 Australian 12-14 year olds surveyed recently agreed that "it's ok to force a girl to have sex if she has been flirting with you".

These Lad websites have degraded girls in every possible way, and frequently suggest horrific, disturbing ideas. But they keep being read, they keep being shared, and they keep being 'liked'. And, although the reason is just that age-old classic recipe of plain and simple, old-school bullying - a case of follow-the-leader so familiar from our childhoods it might as well be in your Memories Box - I'm starting to wonder: how far will this go?

I know that, sadly, at the end of the day, there will be at least one, probably many, many more people reading this who are thinking I just can't take the banter. Hi there. How are you today? If you're around, I'd love to do an interview sometime. Something along the lines of, how does it feel to take one of the world's most serious and soul-destroying crimes and turn it into a joke?

Keep me posted.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1404295 2012-04-04T18:35:55-04:00 2012-06-04T05:12:02-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
In the USA it probably takes a celebrity scandal, or a tear-off burger voucher at the bottom. In France, throw in a scientific study that has proved the inferiority of the British or a jogging timetable of the President et Bob est ton oncle.

In Britain, however, it's apparently best if you shun the social norms of self-deprecation and modesty that sustain our famed sense of humour, instead acting like no Brit anyone has ever met before... and shout your attractiveness from the pages of our national embarrassment, The Daily Mail.

What we have here is one of the most perfectly formed catch 22s I have ever seen in my life. Because, dear reader, you and I are faced with the problematic issue that, whilst I'd like to produce a well-rounded, thoroughly considered, both-sides-of-the-argument commentary on the issue, and you would like to express your personal, thoughtful, interested opinions, we will both be totally unable to. That is to say, the minute I even try to suggest there is a flaw in Brick's argument, or that I can spot a smidgen of hyperbole arising from her lovely, beautiful mouth, I am just jealous.

You see, if we don't agree with her it's not because we think her points are misconceived or badly expressed or wrong. It's because we're unable to get past the fact that we just really really badly want to look like her.

As an avid supporter of free speech, intense debate and generally being opinionated, this catch 22 makes me uncomfortable. However, it does appear to be the lifeblood of the Daily Mail expressed in one death-trap article. Provoke the public into heated debate so intense there are reports from Yorkshire that a man actually EXPLODED in the newsagents... then give the writer such mind-boggling narrow mindedness that everyone is left making 'uh...b-b-b-bu...eh...but?' noises.

And, as much as we, the commentators (particular shout-out to the tweeters, any RTs on that exploding man?) have joined forces and tried to say what we think, tried to say we don't really like her points/face, TRIED to get to grips with her article, we have just ended up boiling with frustration because, lo and behold, today she publishes another article saying 'Your comments on my piece have just PROVED I'm right! You all hate me because I'm beautiful!' (not a direct quote). We simply can't win.

But I'm going to seize the Brick by the horns and tackle the journalism behind Brickgate anyway, because I think she took aim at something really, really important... and totally missed her target.

Samantha Brick told the world she thinks she has "lovely looks". Now, in the backlash, people are slamming her as arrogant, vain, hugely egotistical and, those somewhat less tactful, not really as pretty as she claims/as they were hoping when they Google Imaged her. In response, she has said that this is evidence of British, but, particularly, female discomfort with other people's beauty.

In response to that, I would like to say that I believe she has downright missed the point. It is not that the Brits have been made to feel uncomfortable by her attractive appearance. On the contrary, beauty sells - we like to look at, be told the news by, be sold products by aesthetically pleasing, easy-on-the-eye people. That's why Rosie Huntington-Whiteley advertises our beloved M&S.

The problem we have with, well, her, is her self-confidence. And, whilst I genuinely admire her for her now-renowned belief in her own beauty, there is a certain level of self-confidence that is socially acceptable, and this is not it. We should applaud and admire those who are happy in their own skins, who prance around their bedrooms in their pants and shout 'YES! I AM attractive!'

But Samantha Brick has more of a case of 'I'm sexy and I know it'. Hers is not a quiet, happy, confident self-assurance, it's more of a you-must-be-soooo-jealous-of-me-but-THAT'S-OK-because-everyone-is self-assurance.

And, understandably, we don't like that.

What's more, the article misses its own central argument - which could have been really, really good. Brick glides straight over her point that she has happily "flirted to get ahead at work", an extensively problematic and seriously worrying issue modern day women struggle with every single day.

She brushes past her point that the stranger who came to comfort her as she was in tears in a carpark was a man and, as she herself asserts, only did so because of her looks. Which, she perkily adds, meant she got her car parked, and a coffee out of it.

Her article reads much more like a bitchy, moany exposée than a thoughtful attempt to get to terms with one of society's most boggling taboos. Not to mention Miss Brick has done about as much for the problems of modern day feminism as Bin Laden.

She has become the face of the idea that women can only - and should - get ahead in life through their appearance or flirtation, and - most worryingly of all - this has resulted in an article perpetrating this idea to literally thousands of the public, thereby degrading women everywhere.

Her article didn't bother me because she's attractive. It didn't even bother me because it made me a bit sick into my mouth with its staggering arrogance. Like I've said above, good for her - I'm sure many people (including very often myself) can only dream of such self-confidence.

Her article bothered me because she had a platform, and she 100% failed to use it. With a title like 'Why Women Hate Me For Being Beautiful' her readers were bound to flock in their thousands - hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions even, and, as we've seen, they did.

These millions could have come across a fascinating exploration of this country's problem with self-confidence, or a gritty critique riling against appearance-based discrimination against women.

But, as we've seen, they didn't.

Reader, I admit it - I was jealous. Jealous that she had such a coherent, powerful platform for important debate... and she wasted it on gloating about attention she had received, bitching about not-unheard-of prestigious bosses, and pandering to what women everywhere have been fighting against for years - being judged only on appearance.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1393285 2012-03-31T06:19:59-04:00 2012-05-31T05:12:02-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/ Sunday Times down on the coffee table and reaches for a biscotti. Her chocolate Labrador lolls around the conservatory, eagerly pursued by her two year old son Oscar, who is clad head-to-toe in Pumpkin Patch. As she pops the latté-dunked biscuit into her mouth she thinks: "I wonder if I'll fit in a trip to the Deli before the SlutWalk on Saturday?"

It may just be me, but this is not how I picture the typical feminist of today. Which is why, all things considered, I was a little surprised to see that the latest hot topic of feminist discussion is whether feminism is a pursuit for the middle classes, rather than everyone on the planet who thinks men and women should be equal.

As much as this debate aggravates my anti-classist ideals, and makes me hate Britain for ALWAYS BRINGING CLASS INTO EVERYTHING, it is an argument that, rather than fading the minute the sun comes out, like my hatred for Britain, could potentially divide an already weak movement. It is definitely worth consideration.

Feminism has - dare I speak too soon? - seen an almost-resurgence in recent months, with women finally reclaiming the F word. However, the middle class has also been having a resurgence-without-the-re in recent years, with The Economist announcing in 2009 that over half the world's population now belonged to the so-called Middle Class.

If we were to look at this as a correlative relationship, this would suggest that Feminism is, indeed, for the middle classes.

However, economic disaster has also seen an impressive surge in recent years. Rather than a Baby Boom, we are experiencing a Bugger I Have Nothing in my Bank Boom, meaning the working class are suffering more than ever. And yet we can see this too as correlative - or, at the very least, simultaneous - with the resurgence of feminism. Which discounts a key problem area.

Because, at the end of the day, one of the key problems of feminism is a sense of luxury. Throughout history, if you belonged to more than one socially marginalised group, the time would come when you would have to pick which fight to fight. And, when it came to gay rights over women's rights, or disability rights over women's rights, or black rights over women's rights, women's rights often dropped off the radar. Annie Lennox recently suggested that the gay community and feminism had yet to unite in full, explicit support of one another. Black women during the USA's Civil Rights movement lay down their pitchforks in the fight for the women's vote and focused instead on getting the vote for their husbands, brothers and sons - the black men. The multi-marginalised of us feel the need to select which marginalisation to fight against.

Therefore, is it possible that the working class have chosen to fight their fights elsewhere?

It is true to say that, what with escalating bills you can't pay, a daunting overhang of mortgage, a poor selection of schools in the area, a desperate need to put food on the table every day and therefore a constant battle against soaring supermarket prices, feminism may just not be a priority for people. Not only is this understandable, it's also pretty damn probable.

However, if the Current Economic Crisis and the resurgence of feminism are happening at the same time, doesn't this mean it hasn't deterred our budding feminists?

The thing is, feminism is still such a taboo word that, if you're going to identify yourself with it, chances are you are passionate enough about it to transcend your class category.

Another point that's been made is that the concerns of feminism are not so much the concerns of the working class. These have been identified as paying for a nanny (so as to manage 'working mum' status), and how to get more sway in high-flying positions, for example.

Not only do I feel that these two examples are rather missing the point (costs of a nanny are not the be-all-and-end-all of working motherhood) and are, in fact, patronising and degrading by suggesting no working class woman should aspire to obtain a high-flying position in which she might need tips on how to get on par with a male colleague, but I would suggest that, of all the fights we feminists fight, these two examples are very far off the most important.

Domestic violence, rape, sex trafficking, refusal to educate young girls, female circumcision (genital mutilation), arranged marriage - these are just a handful of fights from around the world that I would say were much, much more important than the local prices of nannys. Just a personal opinion, though.

What's more, some have argued that some of these important fights are often more relevant to the working classes than the middle classes. It has been suggested, relatively logically, that domestic violence is more likely to occur within a relationship if financial troubles are afoot. Furthermore, on a global level, problems with sex trafficking, education, arranged marriage and genital mutilation are often more likely to be the problems of the poor, rather than the problems of the wealthy.

Self-confessed feminists are still a bit like pandas - there aren't many of us around right now. Not to mention, society's disdain for the F word means you don't self-confess all that lightly. And, while it is very possible that feminism is losing supporters to other fights, this is something that has to happen - like a process of nature, it is inevitable, and perhaps even necessary. Women who need to worry about feeding their children over reclaiming the night should be allowed to do so - once things get a bit more stable financially, those who want to will reassert their support.

All in all, this isn't a question of whether feminism is for the middle classes. It is more a question of whether, right now, the middle classes are more actively feminist. And, I would say, with an Economic Crisis the size of Jupiter on our hands, ANYONE arming themselves to fight the feminist fight as well as the financial fight should be looked upon as brave, regardless of their class.

This is not a movement in which people are excluded. God knows feminists don't have the luxury of exclusion: this is only a tentative resurgence, it isn't 1918, you know.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1328051 2012-03-08T08:54:58-05:00 2012-05-08T05:12:02-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
STOP KONY 2012 is a campaign from the Invisible Children charity to bring to justice - and, ultimately, arrest - Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army fighting the government in Uganda's civil war, through the medium of social networking and the power of the ordinary Facebook user.

And that ordinary Facebook user has proved to be powerful indeed, with anyone who's anyone hailing the mighty muscle of the 'share' button in bringing about the staggering ascension to public interest of Joseph Kony. Invisible for twenty years, it could only have been the Facebook Generation that brought this monster to attention.

What made YOU share it? Probably, like me, your reason is relatively straight-forward. I shared it because it depicts the brutal and the disgusting and the inhumane, and as many people as possible should be informed about what Joseph Kony is doing.

However, I also shared it because STOP KONY 2012 is changing the conversation of our culture. The Western world has seen something, and they don't like it. And by putting it in step-by-step format, starting with what we do best, they have made the world want to - and able to - do something about it. This is the start of a new approach to international politics.

Yes, we have been spoon-fed every aspect of this campaign. But if that's what it takes to get people to unplug themselves from their iPods and LISTEN, then what, I ask you, is wrong with the help of a spoon?

It is easy to see how the film has achieved such dazzling fame. The logic displayed at the end, for example, is flawless. In order for Kony to be arrested, we, the public, must show the US government that it would be very much against their interest to withdraw their 'adviser' troops from Uganda. That it is very much in our interest - and that it should be part of everyone on this planet's interest.

The film itself is a masterpiece; it hits you hard with its calculated, immeasurably skilled tight-rope walking of the line between factual and heart-wrenching, personal and international, brutal and warm. The inclusion of Gavin, the son of the film's narrator is the icing on the cake - his role is calculated but equally never once fails to move you. There is something magical about the way watching a child's forehead crumple and mouth pout in incomprehension as they come to terms with the concept of a real-life baddie changes your own perspective.

STOP KONY 2012 should be celebrated as a film: that is without question. But, far more importantly, it should be celebrated as a movement - celebrated for its persistence, the staggering amount of work that has no doubt gone into it, and for its achievements in rousing people to want and work for change.

However, I have one, fundamental, criticism. Please, hear me out. I know, sometimes, with popular posts on Facebook, or with top trends on Twitter, there are those people who think themselves Pretty Damn Cool if they choose to dislike it. They post often unnecessarily harsh statuses and comments about organisations that everyone believes in, in order to be controversial, or different, lauding it above others as if to say, 'have you not seen through this faςade? I HAVE!' Mine is no such criticism.

The major - and only - flaw of the film is this: it oversimplifies the issue. The head Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, concludes his contribution with the following: "We need to plan how to arrest Kony. The criminal here is Kony. Stop him... and then solve other problems". It is in this pause between the initial plan of action and the effects of this plan of action that the problem lies.

It is all very well arresting Kony, bringing him out in front of a world of eyes glued to laptops, eyes watching news feeds, eyes wanting justice. But what of these "other problems"? What happens after we've arrested Kony? Uganda is - and has been for as long as the majority of people alive today can remember - extremely unstable. There is a possibility that the rest of the LRA will withdraw and go into hiding after Kony's arrest. There is a possibility that they will not.

The US government face more than a financial/security interests assessment. They face the very real possibility of a repeat of Iraq and Afghanistan - deploying troops to Do Good with the forgotten possibility of tipping the country into turmoil, at which point, where do they stop? Do they withdraw and leave a mess, a worsening of the civil war, a loss of more lives, a massacre of more children? Or do they deploy more troops there, resulting in another Catch 22?

We should support STOP KONY 2012. We should do everything we can to help, to spread the word, to campaign. Above all, we should join in the global conversation that is changing the way we operate as a global culture. But we should not reduce an extraordinarily complex issue to a battle between the Big Bad Selfish US Government and the Peace Keepers.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1279377 2012-02-16T00:08:34-05:00 2012-04-16T05:12:01-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
It has taken the British press a long time to reach the realisation that the under-16s do, in fact, have sex. With condoms, without condoms, with the Pill, without the Pill... And now with the implant.

I have always been of the wake-up-and-smell-the-strawberry-flavoured-condom party - underage teenagers are having sex, so we might as well help them make it safe. Some say that dishing out free condoms to the underage may encourage them to have sex when they weren't otherwise thinking about it. As valid as this argument is, the truth is that, with our overtly sexualised society, our malicious love of peer pressure and our primal homo sapien instincts, chances are they are. Chances are, from the minute Jack told the class he had sex the other night, merely two weeks after that awful video on 'Growing Up', and when everyone saw Emily had underarm hair during PE on Monday, your teenager has been thinking about sex.

The consequences of no contraception are STIs or pregnancy. The consequence of untreated chlamydia is infertility. The consequence of obtaining herpes is a lifetime of sores and medication during flare-ups. The consequence of teenage pregnancy is botched life plans, rejection from society, responsibilities no child should even be forced to consider, or, if you prefer, abortion, with all the psychological traumatisation and baggage that can produce in anyone, let alone one so young.

The consequence of offering underage teenagers contraception are that they might consider a fact of life a bit earlier than they might otherwise have done... and that you eradicate the possibility of all the above.

The mother of the girl in question has taken the news very well, unlike many parents would. The argument that is neglected time and again in defence of the Fraser Guidelines - the legal schpiel that allows underage sexual health and contraception patients the right to confidentiality - is the unsurprisingly-not-much-talked-about existence of abusive parents. Some girls, upon telling their parents they are considering having sex will be given a hot chocolate, a friendly listening ear, an anecdote of personal mistakes and lessons learned, and a leaflet on multiple contraceptive options. Others will be ignored. Or told they're a slut. Or hit. Or raped.

As the 13-year-old girl who caused all this fuss wisely told the British press, "some children just can't speak to their parents [about sex]". In all their outrage and disgust, I would urge people to swallow their pride and accept some wisdom from those younger than them, and consider the kids who can't talk to mum and dad about sex, let alone, God forbid, tell them that they're pregnant. Before you claim, outraged, that your 13-year-old should want a teddy and not an implant, please consider the girl getting an implant, avoiding pregnancy, and getting it confidentially, avoiding a black eye, or a broken rib.

The mother has said: "This is a step too far. To perform a minor surgical procedure on school grounds without parents knowing is morally wrong." As any intuitive reader will note, her foremost complaint about the procedure is that the implant involves minor surgery - the breaking of skin, the use of local anaesthetic - which should entail the notification of a parent when performed on a minor. Not once does the mother express unease at the contraceptive nature of it, and, as readers of the few and far between articles that have presented rather than obscured the argument will know, she goes on to say she is "proud" of her daughter's actions.

And why shouldn't she be? The girl, when interviewed, has proved to be a very bright, very smart girl with very considered views and opinions. And her mother has highlighted a crucial difference between the implant and most other forms of contraception. The implant involves minor surgery. It sounds like it might be really quite painful (although, with the use of local anaesthetic, it's not). Girls who have it come out with bandages on their arms. All in all, the implant sounds, as I would have said at 13, GROSS.

And no 13 year old girl is going to take up the offer of a nurse inserting a 4cm rod under the skin of her arm lightly. Any 13-year-old who goes ahead with this is going to have thought it through - I imagine quite hard.

And that is where the implant differs. It is not the Pill, branded as simple and easy and pain-free. It is about as appealing to teenage girls as vaccines - and anyone who ever went to any British school will still hear in their nightmares the blood-curdling screams of a group of year 8 girls being told today's the day they have their Tetanus booster.

We need to realise the dangers of offering contraception to those who, in an ideal world, shouldn't need it. But we need to understand that, in our imperfect, overtly sexualised, sometimes morally lacking world, they do need it. And they need our help, our support and our vow of confidentiality if they so require it. I'm willing to back providing that. Are you?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1268802 2012-02-10T12:57:17-05:00 2012-04-11T05:12:01-04:00

Rebecca Myers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-myers/
"You see, people of the train, I am just like you. I also have a book with which I intend to be quiet. We are kindred spirits. You, Mr Chubby Banker, are reading The Big Short. You, Ms Trainee Lawyer, are reading To Kill a Mockingbird. You, Mr Cumberbatch, I can see that you are reading The Hound of the Baskervilles. And here, in my bag, is the book that I, innocent violator of the quiet zone, am reading..."

And that's when you see it. Poking out the top of your bag - too far out for you to pretend you forgot it - THE DA VINCI CODE. Your heart pounds, eyes narrow, anticipation runs in beads down foreheads, your hand is sweaty as it holds the offending book in mid bag removal... THEY KNOW!! They know you read Dan Brown. You have spent years declaring you are a Dickens fiend, boasting that you, yes you, have read The Mystery of Edwin Drood and NOW THEY KNOW. Your whole career of perpetuating literary snobbery has been a lie.

Because, at the end of the day, that's what it is, this fanatical adoration of Dickens, this ability to turn the leaden, convoluted pages of his unfinished works and claim they are "real page-turners!" It is literary snobbery.

Examine why it is you are ashamed of reading Dan Brown. Is it an inherently bad book? Is it despicably spelt, appallingly ungrammatical? Is it that the plot sticks like gum on the side of the train seat, or that the characters have less personality than Mr Chubby Banker's left jowl?

Or is it, perhaps, that, being a savvy consumer of literature in 2012, you know that most critics worth their salt would rather deny the existence of Jordan's ghostwriter than invite Dan Brown to a dinner party.

Austen is there, sipping red wine. Dickens is handing round napkins. Woolf has tucked into the prawn cocktail before Eliot sees, and Milton's cooked a mean lamb shank (Delia, of course) that Shelley is adding the roasted vegetables to. Noteworthy absentees: Dan Brown, Steig Larsson, Jilly Cooper, John Grisham, Danielle Steel, Mills and his plus one Boon. While some of these are evidently only defined as literature through the use of an antonym finder, some don't quite fit. Why wasn't Steig invited? He has, after all, written one of the best selling series of all time, and yet we know he'll never be there, glazing the lamb with Milton, pouring the wine for Austen.

Literary snobbery is the entire reason why Tolstoy is one place above Jackie Collins in the Best-selling Fiction of All Time list. Great writing can so easily be discarded in favour of gasp-inducing, saliva-curdling bodice-rippers. War and Peace may be one of the greatest works of literature published to date, but HAVE YOU SEEN HOW LONG IT IS?? The Stud is only 208 pages! Number one bestseller Shakespeare may have been the author who came closest to truly understanding the human mind, but Agatha Christie had such a good knowledge of who might have dunnit that she storms into a second place so close that two new Waterstones customers could blow Will out the water.

More often than not, Joe Bloggs and Jane Jones read War and Peace because they feel they have to, they feel they should. It is, after all, one of the greatest literary classics. And so, they gingerly fold over the cover, concentrate hard on the first sentence and... embark on an experience that will shatter their perceptions of life, revolutionise their political views, evoke emotions so lip-quiveringly powerful they have to pause on page 847 to dry off the tear-spattering on the radiator.

Literary snobbery makes literature the great force of human understanding that it has always been, will always be. If your colleague is the only reason you've just started Great Expectations, and your actually-quite-attractive lecturer the only reason you're halfway through Ulysses, then embrace it. Through them, through the inexplicable pressure you feel to do their bidding and pillage the Classics section, you are learning. You are changing, you are experiencing, you are understanding. Rather than leave The Killing Kind on your sunbed, leave your dad's copy of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. And, in turn, lend him your Of Mice and Men. Write down the ISBN of Dracula for your colleague. Make sure that your quite-attractive-lecturer knows that, for you, it was better to read Women in Love after Sons and Lovers, not before. Offer your fellow snobs a napkin at the dinner party.]]>