Why I've decided to stop calling myself a feminist.

It’s no secret: I am very much in favour of female empowerment and the equality of the sexes. However in spite of this I decided a few months back to no longer go by the name of ‘feminist’ when pressing for these goals.

Strange really, because the definition of “feminism” is: the advocacy of women’s social, political and economic rights, with the aim of bringing about equality of the sexes. And I’m all for that.

I used to be one of the people that just couldn’t get their heads around why some women or young ladies would say they were in favour of equality for the sexes but that they weren’t feminists.

I thought of it as being like me, a Christian, deciding that because there have been Christians who have behaved in anything BUT a Christ-like manner yet still go by the name of Christian, that I would no longer call myself Christian. It seemed ridiculous. Because there have been evil people who used the Bible to justify 400 years of the transatlantic slave trade, decades of colonisation, the Crusaders, homophobic yells calling for all homosexuals to be killed – all inhumane behaviours  – in the name of being Christ-followers I should claim that I was not a Christian? Just because people have messed with the real and original meaning and turned it into a warped version that suits their own ends, I should separate myself from the pure meaning of what it really means to be a Christian? No! The fake Christians should move along and stop giving the rest of us a bad name.

That’s how I felt about calling myself a ‘feminist’. Yes, there have been EXTREME feminists out there that have said a whole lot of out-of-this-world things. (Literally.) I studied Sociology at A-Level and we learnt about some very interesting theories from what are called (for very good reason), radical feminists – including that we should rid the world of men and send them to Mars, and that all women should set up lesbian relationships and use

place which makes creating babies possible? What were they gonna do, call Mars and get them to post what was needed to make a baby? And did they not consider that with these pregnancies, just as well as girls boys could be created?  What were they going to do with the boys born then?

So I think it’s fair to say that we would all consider that a load of rubbish. I dare say there are very few feminists that would align themselves with this kind of thinking. So we would tend to push such radical thinkers to the side and get on with the real job in hand: advocating women’s social, political and economic rights, with the end goal of bringing about the equality of the sexes.

That’s what I used to say until a few months ago. I agreed wholeheartedly with a meme I saw somewhere that compared using the term ‘feminist’ to the appellation of the doctoral profession, with someone called Aziz Ansari saying:

“If you believe that men and women have equal rights, and then someone asks you if you’re a feminist, you have to say yes. Because that’s how words work. You can’t be like, “Yeah, I’m a doctor who primarily does diseases of the skin.” “Oh, so you’re a dermatologist?”  “Oh that’s way too aggressive of a word, not at all, not at all.”

You might be reading this and thinking, Yeah, this all makes total sense. So why did she change her mind then? Well, I’ll tell you. And the reason is, ‘feminist’ is no longer synonymous with “person pushing for equality between the sexes”. It’s become more than that. Much more. In many cases it’s become about making women superior to men “because women are historically the oppressed sex”. So what, because men have historically oppressed us we should start doing the same to them? Don’t think so. I’m not the only one who doesn’t agree. Many of my friends and I refer to this party as ‘feminazis”; women who are always shouting men down and preventing the discussions that need to take place from being had because they think it’s time to do away with (they say it in much stronger terms) “the patriarchy”.

History of Feminism

When feminism started in the 19^th century it was because the female sex really barely had any rights at all. In the UK, we didn’t have the right to property, to divorce in cases of abuse or adultery (only the man was able to do this), even to have access to our children should a divorce ensue. Women were prevented from going to university and they were heavily discriminated against in the workplace. Women over the age of 21 did not get the vote until 1928.

Now, in most countries at least, we have these opportunities. So feminism is becoming a much more comprehensive issue. However, it is now dealing with some things that I don’t feel have anything to do with feminism (see definition used above). 

What is Feminism really about?

Now, if you know me, you’ll know that one of the things that I talk most about when talking about the treatment of women is how we are continually reduced to little more than sex objects. We live in a constant eddy of images selling our bodies for cold, hard cash. From the advert of the woman who is depicted as the victim of a gang rape to get people to buy a Gucci perfume to the topless woman in The Sun whose intimates stare you right in the face, to the singer who poses provocatively on the latest magazine cover to promote her new album… Our bodies are commercialised cheaply as though they mean nothing; as though we – our intellect, our character, who we each are as people  – don’t matter.

Of course these media images don’t end there. They trickle down into the society in which we live: meaning thousands of women grow up with a negative body image and with a constant need to be validated for their looks, to assure that they are good enough. 

Do you think this doesn’t affect how men see us?

Rape, sexual assault, harassment… They don’t seem to be going down.

We are shouted at in the streets, hollered at by passing drivers, stared at lewdly in public places, propositioned at bus stops, at work, walking home… We are almost daily reminded that the society that we live in values us for our anatomies primarily. I don’t like that. And I would think that most ‘feminists’ wouldn’t like it either.

1. Female Sexuality

But now I see more and more feminists saying that women should “embrace their sexuality” and become the leader in their relationships, because then they can assert their power and have it the way they want. Beyoncé, they say, is not reducing herself to a body as she twerks and writhes around as a sexual being on the stage, she is controlling how she wants herself to be presented. OK then. (I’m not part of the Beyhive, if you hadn’t noticed.)

I don’t believe that a woman can use the very puppet strings that men have used for decades to push us into a corner to “empower ourselves”. I’ll give you a surprising example to illustrate my point. I recently came across some research on that two-piece outfit so ubiquitous on our beaches and in our swimming pools in the summer: the bikini.

This research was carried out by professors at Princeton University in the States (don’t worry, I’m not going to talk about Donald Trump… -_-), with the participants being male students at said university. The objective of the research was to reveal the varied manners in which the brain reacts to seeing people in various amounts of clothing.

The bikini was an obvious choice, being the “outfit” which covers the least of the female body (often less than underwear). Some interesting bikini facts for ya: No. 1: it was named after the atomic bomb testing that year (1946), “Bikini Atoll” – because the public’s reaction of the day was expected to be like the explosion of an atomic bomb. No. 2: The creator claimed that his invention “wasn’t a true bikini unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring”. No. 3: It was so scandalous at the time that only a stripper would model it.

How times have changed. In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, women’s bodies were prized to the point that ladies would use “bathing machines” on their outings to the beach. They would wear long dresses over their swimming costumes and ride in carriages measuring 36 square feet right up to the shoreline, before removing their dresses and climbing directly into the water so that they would maintain their discretion. They were in charge.

Are women really in charge of their own bodies now? Is there really “power” in wearing the bikini? Is the woman really “in charge of her sexuality”, as some feminists would have us believe?

That’s what this research set out to discover.

Brain scans showed that when men were shown pictures of scantily-clad women, the region of the brain associated with tools, like screwdrivers and hammers – lit up.

When they saw women wearing bikinis, some men showed absolutely ZERO brain activity in the medial pre-frontal cortex – the region of the brain which lights up when one ponders another’s thoughts, feelings and intentions.  Researchers found this shocking, because they almost never see this region of the brain shut down in this way.

One of the professors put it like this: “It’s as if they are reacting to these women as if they are not fully human. It’s consistent with the idea that they’re responding to these photographs as if they were responding to objects, not people.”

In a separate Princeton study, researchers found that when men were shown pictures like these they tended to associate them with 1^st person action verbs, like I push, I grab, I handle. That is scary to me. All the evidence would point to the fact that when women are presented in such a way that their bodies become the primary focus of attention, men are inherently likely to forget that they are people and start to think of and treat them like objects. On the other hand, when women were more fully clothed, men associate images of them with third-person verbs, like she pushes, she grabs, etc.

At one time women were kicked off the beach for wearing bikinis. Now they are kicked off the beach for wearing burkinis. (I’m looking at you, France, and I’m very ashamed.) That’s not the kind of “female empowerment” I’m in favour of.

Apparently, the annual spending on the bikini in the United States totalled 8bn dollars in US in 2012.

So that to me would show me that women cannot in fact be in charge of their sexuality and the way they would like to be treated by peeling off more layers of clothes and saying that they’re in charge because they’re the ones that chose to take them off. We live in a society which tells us to take off more layers of clothing to get where we want – how is listening to that making your own decision? It’s just following what you’re being told but telling yourself that you’re doing it on your own.

If women want to do that, that’s their prerogative. But please, don’t call it feminism.

The real feminists spent years working for women to be more than mannequins. Please don’t undo their work.

This idea has descended even further in recent times – to a feeling of nonchalance or even support, of prostitution, or what some now term “sex work”. Now this I don’t get. Some people say that some people have to prostitute themselves because they have no other options. I don’t agree with this.

Aside from the fact that I believe as a Christian that sex should be between a man and woman in the context of marriage, I can’t imagine how it can in any way be healthy or satisfying for men and women  to be treating an act so intimate and personal with any triviality.

When our society gets to the point that it says that people without THE MEANS (without much money) must resort to selling their bodies for sex, rather than creating DIGNITY-ENCOURAGING opportunities for women that find themselves in dire straits to me is a troubling thing.  Some people say that women should be able to do whatever they like and shouldn’t be judged for it. They say that some women find pleasure in opening their legs several times a day for strangers rather than treating this phenomenon as worrisome. I think if we’ve gotten to the point where women feel like there is no other job that they can do to provide for themselves and their families then there is something seriously wrong with the societies that they live in. When a woman can’t use her intellect, her character and her humanity to earn a living but can only use her body and her ability to satisfy a man’s sexual desires, then I think we went wrong somewhere – don’t you? Shouldn’t we be investing in public schemes that help women get out of this trap and provide them with a meaningful life, instead of shrugging our shoulders and saying this is the way that it has to be?

Are the women that claim to be feminists whilst advocating this popular opinion really putting the interests of their fellow women at heart or are they simply trying to find a reason to continue the repeated exploitation of women by means of their sexuality?

I don’t call that feminism. Or at least, if that’s what people nowadays want to call feminism, I’d rather stay out of it. 

2. Feminism and Abortion

Here’s another reason why I’m shying away from the term “feminism” nowadays: I don’t agree with abortion. Don’t ask me any more questions about why, just go to my post I’m Pro-Life, and I don’t see why that’s a problem. You’ll find all my opinions and responses to comments there.

Now, abortion is just seen as a given and compulsory part of the feminism code now and I’m out. I wholeheartedly disagree with the taking of another human being’s life and I don’t see how by doing so I am in any way at conflict with the advocation of equality and respect for women. In fact, femicide is a form of abortion that is frighteningly on the rise these days (the termination of embryos simply because they are female). So how can the feminists hold their fists up in support of a practice that is killing more and more of us X chromosomes by the day?

Now women everywhere – and particularly in the West – are going about calling abortion “reproductive rights” and saying that they have a choice to do what they want with their own bodies. Yes, you do. Usually the choice that you have is not having sex if you don’t want to get pregnant, but somehow we’re supposed to ignore that, or it’s supposed to be unfair. (Of course I realise that the woman does not always have a choice and that the horrific act of rape does sadly happen to some women, and this cannot be taken lightly, but you can read my thoughts on that on the post I linked above.) We talk about choice for what we want to eat or how a mother wants to deliver. These encompass your “right to choose”; yes absolutely. But in the context of deciding whether or not you’re going to let a child live or take their life in the womb, is that really a “choice”? Is it really a “right”? Even though the child a woman carries is a product of her, he or she is also another human being and has the same-sized DNA of another person flowing through their blood. So how it becomes simply the woman’s “choice” is beyond me.

Again, on this some of us may have a difference of opinion, and I accept that. But if the “right to abort” is now becoming a fundamental precedent of feminism, then I’m out.

3. Shaving

Now I’ve talked already in some detail about being a woman means that you are subjected to sometimes a horrific amount of sexual objectification (don’t get me started on what it was like in Italy, for example). But I haven’t gone into detail about the double standards that so often result from that.

Sure, our culture nowadays pushes both men and women to take good care of their appearance. But it can’t be denied that the standard women are held to is on a completely different scale to that which women are measured up against.

For example, I’ve written in a previous post about why I don’t wear make-up (here). That’s most definitely counter-culture. I was even interviewed by the BBC on this point some time after I published it. Such a decision is so out-of-sync with what most people are doing that it was considered newsworthy.

There are a lot of things that women are expected to do to maintain their appearance that I don’t do. I don’t wax my eyebrows or draw them on for that matter, and ooh – wait for it… I don’t shave my legs. Or my arms.

Yes, I am still a woman.

Yes, I am feminine.

No, I don’t believe that the God-given hair that grows from my limbs is disgusting or unhygienic. When was the last time you told a man to wax his legs? …

Exactly.

In fact, body hair is a very helpful biological asset to have. I don’t get why we should be forced to put ourselves through pain to remove it when it actually does it quite a lot of good.

The hair on our arms and legs actually work to regulate our body temperature. I, for one, am very sensitive to temperature changes so when I get cold, I get really cold. I shiver and chatter. And that’s with my hairs still intact – can you imagine what I would be like without those trusty, thin little lines? They even have muscles of their own, which is what makes our hairs able to stand up on end when we get cold or scared. Body hair also helps us cool down in hot weather: as we sweat, it can work to wick moisture away from the skin. That’s not what you thought about armpit hair, is it? Hehe.

Oh here’s another random one, which provides more evidence that human nature is never far from considering the best way to find a suitable partner of the opposite sex to construct a life with: see my blog post on the differences between men and women here – apparently underarm hair and the hair down under act to catch and then dry hormones secreted by the body so that they can ride through the air and reach the olfactory senses of that special someone. I’m not kidding. I just thought it was a funny one to tell you. What can I say, God thinks of everything?!

Do you wanna hear some other pretty interesting things about body hair?

Apparently the more body hair you have, the more intelligent you are. Well, that’s what a study on men with varying amounts of body hair found; that there was a correlation between these two factors. So women, do we want men to have another reason to say they’re smarter than we are?

Our body hair also acts as a sense organ, and helps our body’s defences and the immune system. 

And it contains gold??! No joke, scientists have found that our hair contains nanoparticles of gold. Gold is my favourite colour; the more hairs the merrier!

Scientists also say that underarm hair reduces friction between the upper and lower arm during vigorous motion and covers exposed parts of the body with vital arteries. Dr. Mona Gohara, an associate clinical professor of dermatology at Yale University says: “When you shave, you can get irritation, folliculitis, rashes, inflammation, and even infections from dirty razors. We do it [women] because it’s a societal norm, but there really isn’t any biological reason to remove that hair. There’s this false association that hairlessness equals cleanliness, but that’s not actually true as long as you’re clean. Men wear deodorant, have underarm hair, and don’t smell – there’s no biological reason women can’t do the same.” (Check this out for more: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/beauty/a32910/female-armpit-hair/)

In fact, once people start shaving their hair only grows back more quickly and thicker and pricklier than it used to (and even then it’s still thinner than male body hair)! Too many times I’ve been with friends who start to get freaked about because they’re wearing a skirt and they’ve just realised they forgot to shave that morning. They’re sitting there with their few prickly hairs that I didn’t even notice and I’m sitting there having never shaved my legs wondering what all the fuss is about.

Do you wanna know why women even started shaving in the first place? It all started around the 1920s, during the Flapper era, a time when women were gaining more and more independence and the sleeveless dress was emerging as a fashion.  In 1915, Harper’s Bazaar, a magazine aimed at the upper and upper middle classes (and still in existence today), published an advertisement featuring a woman dressed in a toga-style outfit raising one hand high above her head to reveal her hairless armpit. The advert read: ‘Summer dress and modern dancing combine to make necessary the removal of objectionable hair’. And that was it. In order to be considered ‘women of refinement’, as the advert put it, women started to flock out to get the new Gilette razor and other products that would remove the hair that was suddenly objectionable on them but not on men.

It’s all a scam. Capitalist companies and people in power make money off making women feel uncomfortable and insecure in their own bodies and convincing that it’s only after hours of “maintaining themselves” that they will be fit to be seen in public. So-called feminists buy into these lies. 

A study in 2008 revealed that American women who shave (and supposedly even using the cheaper methods of hair removal) will spend, on average, more than 10,000 dollars and nearly two entire months of their lives on managing unwanted hair. As for the woman who waxes once or twice a month, she will spend more than 23 thousand dollars over the course of her lifetime. Click for more info: http://www.alternet.org/books/why-have-americans-gotten-so-extreme-their-obsession-hair-free-bodies 

Frankly I think I’m saving a lot of money by not listening to a culture that tells me I need to spend money on so many extra things to simply be. As well as saving myself a lot of time by not wearing makeup or shaving relentlessly, I reckon I’ll have a lot more money to give to charity and to spend on other good causes over the course of my life by not spending money on these.

I thought there was supposed to be a large element of sisterhood included in the idea of feminism. But women bash each other more than men bash us sometimes! I could talk about how people criticised superstar gymnast Gabby Douglas when at 16, she won an Olympic gold medal and black women kept going on about her curly baby hairs (I’m absolutely a naturalista, if you didn’t know – take a look at this for more) as one example, but I’ll focus here on how worked up some women get when they see hair that grows on their own bodies on other women’s bodies.

I remember watching a talk show on which a woman that shaved religiously and one who didn’t were interviewed about the topic, and the woman who shaved was visibly repulsed by seeing the hair that she had never allowed to grow on her own body. I just don’t get it. Neither does this lady, who realised how strange it was that she was so bothered about seeing other women’s body hair and wrote this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexandra-allam/why-women-shave-their-legs_b_7575456.html

 I don’t get people that stare at hair on women’s legs either. It’s rude, just like it is to stare at a black person for ages because they’re different from you. You don’t like it? Look away and get on with your life. Don’t think that by staring at them you’re going to change them.

If any woman wants to shave that’s her prerogative. But it’s not right to think that it’s in the handbook for “How to be a Woman”. It isn’t. Should people who consider themselves to be feminists be so hard on women that decide not to stick to the status quo?

4. Chivalry

OK, so now I’m going to go on to my fourth point, which demonstrates that feminism and I aren’t walking on the same path anymore.

Chivalry. What happened to the knight in shining armour?

What happened to men being allowed to be gentlemen to ladies?

What happened to guys opening the door for women being a good thing and not a sign of rude arrogance?

Some feminists hate it when a guy offers them a seat on public transport – even if they’re pregnant. Because, just because I’m a woman doesn’t mean I’m weak and stand on my own two feet! Come on ladies, really??

When a guy wants to pay for the lady when they go out he’s being rude and presumptuous? What happened to the value of being kind and generous? Some guys are now scared to be chivalrous because they don’t want to get their heads bitten off. It’s such a shame, because chivalry is such a rarity these days as it is, and the few nice guys out there feel afraid to be gentlemen because of the angry “I can do it myself, and better than you!” rhetoric of feminism.

I for one, quite like it when I’m struggling with a massive suitcase in a bustling train station or at an airport and a guy offers to help me with it. (Of course I have to keep an eye on it to make sure they’re not going to make a run for it with all my stuff, but aside from that niggling caution, it’s all good!) I don’t want to be associated with a movement that has started to tread upon gallantry.

I actually think that the man should be the one that takes the lead in relationships. A lot of women and girls these days feel they have to scramble for the attention of any male they’re interested in because otherwise someone else will get him or the guy will just not get the message. I think we should let guys do the wooing. Call me old-fashioned, but I think he should be the one to pursue in hopes of a long-lasting relationship. I don’t think the girl’s way of attracting a guy should be to scream, “Look at me! I’m over here!” I believe we can give men the benefit of the doubt; I reckon if they were just allowed to look out for themselves they would spot that girl across the crowded room that they wanted to be their wife.

True, there are a lot of spineless guys out there that won’t get up and move to pursue women and capture their hearts. But feminism has contributed to that, in my opinion, by emasculating men.

There are guys out there that can be knights in shining armour if allowed to be. But feminism isn’t doing a great job of celebrating them, so I’m getting off this ship now.

5. Motherhood

So yes, I want to get married and have kids. You got a problem with that, feminism?

Well, a lot of feminists clearly do. They think that a woman should spend all of her life getting ahead in the workplace and no time at home looking after or even having kids. (I mentioned that notion in this earlier blog post.)

Sorry, I don’t agree.

If a woman decides that she doesn’t want to get a job and wants to stay at home and look after her children, then that is her lifestyle choice. She isn’t weak and brainless because of it. (Do you know how much strength it takes to be a mum?) And if she chooses that she wants to be a working mum and amazingly manage two jobs at once then kudos to her! But please don’t act like making babies is something that women should run away from, feminism. I’m not about that life.

To finish off…

So, there you have it. I’m passionate about women having social, political and economic rights which allow us the dignity and opportunities we deserve and protects us from sexism. Things like, us not being treated like sexual objects and not continuing to disproportionately be targeted as victims of violent abuse at the hands of men. But feminism isn’t doing a lot of what it was made for any more.

As far as I'm concerned, if feminists are saying or doing the wrong thing, then men and any of us are justified in rejecting what they’re saying. Like for me, if feminism is becoming about a baby being considered simply a part of the woman’s uterus and something she can do whatever she likes with, then man, you disagree with her all you like! I also don’t want to be associated with a movement that is trying to strip away the differences between men and women, because I believe that we were created differently for a reason and that there is beauty and equality in those differences. Feminism has a part to play in emasculating men and I ain’t here for that.

So, in a nutshell, the people shouting the loudest in the feminist movement are shouting in favour of a lot of things I don’t stand for, and in fact, some of the people that consider themselves feminists are oppressing others – the oppressed are becoming the oppressors.

I’m a woman who cares a lot about seeing women treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve but not whilst treading on others. I guess that just makes me a caring human being. You can join and be one too with me if you want. (Clue: you don’t have to be a woman to care.)

Social justice ~ Socialist.

The most famous and widely-read book in the world has amongst its many wisdom-filled lines: ‘The love of money is the root of all evil’. Some would say that the Bible is outdated and doesn’t fit our modern-day society but I would say that it is still relevant, thousands of years after its writers first penned the words that fill its pages. For even that one assertion has plenty of evidence to prove it valid: yes, still in the 21^st century.

I never used to be interested in politics. I saw it as boring and the concern of middle-aged men. But one sentence I heard uttered some time ago by a guest speaker on a radio programme changed my position. She said: “Women often say they’re not interested in politics. But the fact is, they want change. And that’s what politics is all about; it’s about seeking to change things for the better.” Her words struck me. They made me realise that I have actually been political since I was in primary school. I have always spoken my mind on matters that I believe to be indicators of societal problems and I have always sought to do what I can to change things. You already know that: you’re reading a blog post on The Change Channel.

As a child for whom the extent of political knowledge was the Prime Minister’s name, I remember once asking my mum what the job of the Conservatives was. Voting Labour is the the generally accepted thing to do around where I live, so I didn’t know much about ‘the other side’. She told me in simple terms: “the Conservatives are all about conserving things, keeping things the way they are.” She added half-in-jest: “They just want to keep all the money to themselves.”

It may have been a very simplistic explanation but even now I still think it’s an accurate description of the Conservative party. That is, the principal right-wing party in the UK. Now I’m not about to launch into eulogising Ed Milliband or begin a discussion on the rubberiness of his voice. Instead I’m going to tell you why I think a socialist approach goes hand in hand with social justice.

What is social justice?

Social justice is generally agreed to be ‘justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society’. Thomas Jefferson’s world-famous lines assert “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” So if we were all born equal, what happened in between?

It’s self-evident that there are multiple inequalities in the world in which we live today. They can be found between men and women, the rich and the poor, whites and non-whites, the sheltered and the neglected, the able-bodied and the disabled . . . Social justice aspires to rid the world of these wrongs with the aim of bringing about a better, fairer world.  

And the place to start is acknowledging that some groups in society are dealt a better hand than others from the start. So we may all have been “created equal”, but the minute we enter a very unequal world, we are either ushered up to the top of the pile or shoved to the bottom, according to who society deems laudable or undeserving. The words of Rousseau come to mind: ‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’.

Capitalism

As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realise just how much the way our society is run is dependent on who’s got the largest amount of money (or who’s got hardly any of it). The fact is, money is power. So if you “ain’t” got much of it, you “ain’t” got much power. Capitalism as a system is characterised by the private ownership of the means of production (the raw materials and the labour force), and inevitably results in the unequal distribution of wealth. As its name suggests, it centres on capital (wealth), unlike its counterpart ideology: socialism, which radically places society at its focus, pushing for a society in which wealth is evenly distributed and is owned by a collective community, usually through the state. I studied Marxism as part of my Sociology course at Advanced Level and although the principles its founders propounded seemed interesting to me at the time, I never really fully realised the import of their ideological approaches until I came to uni. It was here that I saw Max Weber’s theories acted out in real life.

In simplistic terms, the model which Marxists created saw society as divided along class lines, the working class (the proletariat) and the upper classes (the bourgeoisie); staying in tune with a system intended to keep the labour workforce in their place – working hard for the richer people. Provided the proletariat stayed in their place, other institutions, like the media and education could flourish effectively. Flourish effectively for one group of people that is. Yep, you guessed it: for the rich dudes (the bourgeoisie folk). Very simplistic illustration but that’s basically how capitalism works – there are people on top who push others beneath them and make them do all the work so that they the rich people at the top – can have a good life: whilst the people breaking their backs get very little or nothing in return.

Doesn’t sound very fair to me! How about you? Not really the right conditions for social justice, I would say: makes for unequal  distribution of wealth, opportunities and privileges in a society. Want me to give you a few examples?

Women

OK so let’s look at the position of women in society. I’m sure you’ll agree that even in the 21^st century a massive amount of inequality exists between men and women. Women make up 51% of the global population but worldwide figures show us that women are less likely than men to get an education, be employed or be elected to parliament – all the while they are more likely to be victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, rape; more likely to be victims of sex trafficking; forced to be child brides – and worse still, some will deny females their right to live before they are even born, based on the lie that they have nothing good to offer the world.

Pretty horrible state of affairs.

You might be wondering what all this has to do with ‘the love of money’ that I referred to earlier, and the Marxist model and all of that. Allow me to explain my thought process: men have been the ones in positions of ultimate power for the past several centuries. In this modern age, women face fewer obstacles (although still many) to their endeavours than they once did, and so positions of power are no longer solely occupied by men.

It follows that some men feel threatened by the emergence of women in an arena in which they once found themselves alone. They resent that women will now have more of a say in their own lives, rather than having matters decided for them by those who want to “keep them in their place”. As things currently stand, in many cases women are still not paid the same amount of money as their male counterparts for the same work and they find themselves up against a ‘glass ceiling’ which prevents them from getting promoted in their fields because those positions are reserved for men.

How can we explain this if it not with capitalism? The more women get promoted, the fewer men get more cash in their pockets. Capitalism has a system to uphold and anything that shows any signs of messing with that status quo is soon stopped in its tracks. Think Jimmy Savile, that fishy so-called philanthropist who in actual fact used his powerful position to abuse thousands of young girls. Looking back on his life and the plethora of complaints made against Savile in his lifetime, it seems mind-boggling that something was not done earlier to change things.

But once I thought on things more deeply, I could see that it suited the interests of capitalism to leave a powerful man like Savile alone. The guy had been honoured by the Queen and was one of the most famous presenters on the TV: if he were to be charged, that would mean the end of high ratings for the BBC for Top of the Pops. If they got a man with that much power into trouble they would surely lose out on the power stakes themselves. People often have difficulty understanding why survivors of rape do not immediately report the crime: but in Savile’s case should it be so hard to believe? A rich white man loved by the British public against young teenage girls – who would be believed?

To my mind there is a clear link here between ‘the love of money’ and the evils sustained against women. Capitalism stacks the odds against those whose oppression it benefits from.

I’m not saying that capitalism is to blame for all the inequalities that women face today. However it is responsible for giving men more opportunities than women and it does grant the powerful safety nets which protect their interests, and this governs who ends up where. In spite of all this however, women continue to work hard and are still achieving great things. Despite being told they couldn’t do it, they are making their mark on science, sport, literature and many other fields. The thing is, it’s just so much harder for them to get there than it is for men. And that’s not fair.

Class

Capitalism presumes that the path to success is easy – because the path to success for those at the top of the capitalist ladder is easy. David Cameron (leader of the Conservative party) comes from a family which to this day is still benefiting from the ‘compensation’ they gained when they lost their slaves after the abolition. This sum, which equates to millions in today’s money, didn’t do Cameron any harm when he attended some of the highest fee-paying schools in the country.

The Conservatives, in their practice of capitalism, would tell us, ‘Work hard and you’ll get to where you want to in life.’ That’s their answer to everything. Work hard, that’s all well and good – but what if you have the attitude of a high-flyer yet are constantly having the opportunities which are your due right snatched away from you? That’s what happens if you’re a member of the lower classes – we see it everywhere.

Here at Oxford, where I’m studying, the evidence of classism is plain to see. It is with good reason that the university has a reputation of being a place for the cultural elite. Within the infrastructure and the intake of the students each year the upper classes most definitely come out on top. Studies in the past have shown that applicants from private schools were 14% more likely to be offered a place at Oxford than those with the same grades who went to a comprehensive school.  Although only 7% of British children attend fee-paying schools, students from private schools make up 43.2% of Oxford students! I mean, is that classist or what??

How can we say that where you get to in life is dependent on solely how hard you work when we have figures such as these staring us in the face? We all know that Oxbridge-educated people dominate the political sphere. David Cameron went to Brasenose College, Oxford, Ed Milliband went to Corpus Christi College, Oxford and Nick Clegg went to Cambridge (don’t expect me to give further details, we two universities are arch rivals!). I write from a college where the first and only female Prime Minister of the UK so far, Margaret Thatcher, and India’s first woman Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi, completed their degrees. 

So it’s evident that people that go to universities like these are more likely to have a say in the running of their countries. If they’re more likely to have a say in how the country is run they will be directly impacting on the lives of thousands, even millions, of people. And if only one small subsection of society is allowed to have a say in how people live their lives, how are things ever going to change?

We need a change from the bottom-up. The working classes and middle classes need to be given a say in how the country is run – because they make up over 70% of the nation. When less than 20% of the country is making the decisions that affect everyone then things are never going to be fair.

That means that universities like Oxford and Cambridge have a duty to accept more working class and middle class students than they currently are. The education system at large needs a massive overhaul to get the less well-off and the more deprived on the straits to success. At present those who live in poorer, more crime-filled areas, are less likely to get admitted into good schools. ‘Good schools’ being those who provide an adequate amount of teaching staff with decent sized classes so that each student is given the opportunity to learn properly. They are also more likely to be encouraged to take more vocational paths, being whispered the lie they are not skilled enough to go into the field of academics. And of course it is those who go into the academic field that end up having the most power in society. So the false consciousness to which the Marxists referred – the state of being that the working classes often find themselves in: where they are so accustomed to being exploited that they no longer question it and instead adopt the views of their oppressors – becomes instrumental in maintaining the status quo.

Many repeat that oft-used phrase: “They’re taking all our benefits!” to excuse the mistreatment of the working classes. But what they fail to realise is that the “scroungers” that sit on their bums all day and get paid by the state are very much in the minority: an unfortunate piece of the puzzle but very much in the minority. There are thousands of people in this country who work hard but find themselves displaced from the top-earning positions in the world of work (for reasons I have discussed above) and rather find themselves earning just enough to be out of the benefits cap but not enough to live comfortably. With childcare costs at a ridiculous high, many young families find themselves in debt before they have hardly gotten off the ground – and still they find themselves faced with that mantra: “Work hard and you’ll get where you want in life.”

It’s for people like this that I believe we need a re-structuring of wealth distribution. The richest 10% of the UK population owns something like 40% of the wealth. That’s just not fair – especially when those at the top largely didn’t work for what they had, but were just born into it – whilst those at the bottom find themselves dealt an unappealing deck of cards.

Race

Equality of opportunity is important again when we consider the structural inequalities that result from divisions along racial lines. Racism just isn’t over. If you’ve read my post about racism and the role of ignorance, you’ll already be familiar with the advice that black parents are wont to give their children:  “Work twice as hard at everything you do, because it’s going to take twice as much effort for you to get as far as a white person”.

If the working classes are in the minority in Oxford then ethnic minorities are an even rarer find. Out of term-time I live in the highly ethnically diverse and multicultural city in the North of England known as Manchester. It’s a vibrant place of friendly faces. The contrast between Manchester and Oxford couldn’t really be more different – when I return to the city of Dreaming Spires it’s literally a game of ‘spot the black people’. I can remember when I told a friend that I had been admitted into this university. He said: “You’ll be the only black person there!”

Figures have shown that in years past, over 25% of white applicants to Oxford University were successful, with only 17.2% of ethnic minority applicants getting in. White applicants to Medicine were twice as likely to get a place as minority ethnic candidates, even when they had all obtained 3 A* grades. Institutional racism is very clear to see. Only 3.9% of Oxford’s professors are of a BME (black, minority ethnic) background, to talk less of the curriculum being fiercely Eurocentric. Oh and don’t forget, one of the world’s most notorious racists has a library and a scholarship in his name over here. (That would be Mr. Cecil Rhodes, the man behind the apartheid in South Africa.)

Thankfully I don’t go to one of those super elitist colleges in Oxford where I’d be the only black person there in 5 years, or the only person from the North of England in my year, or something ridiculous like that. Somerville College is one of the more open and diverse colleges, with the majority of students having attended state schools. (I’m also proud of it for being one of the first colleges in Oxford to cater for women.) However that hasn’t made me oblivious to the racism that unfolds here in this university on a daily basis. 

Every time I go to a debate at the Oxford Union I am genuinely astonished by just how oblivious some people are to the plight of others, and just how easily they can spew racist bigotry without batting an eyelid.

Equality of opportunity as far as race is concerned is imperative if we are to see true social justice take place in the nations of the world. Ethnic minorities find themselves more likely to be demonised by the police, more likely to find themselves out of work, less likely to get good housing, less likely to be believed when filing a crime complaint . . .

The status quo keeps the traditional owners of wealth and power at the top. They “keep us in our place” by telling us that we’re not good enough, not pretty enough, (here I explore the relation between capitalism and the “beauty industry”), not skilled enough.

Disability

Disabled people are a group I fear we don’t talk enough about. They’re often forgotten in discussions about discrimination and equality. They shouldn’t be: there are over 11 million people living in the UK with a long term illness, impairment or disability, meaning they often cannot work. The school of thought that puts society first says that everyone should have the same amount of wealth so that we can all lead fair lives even if we're born into difficult positions: those who are on the capitalist side will only make those who are hurting the hurt even more. (click here to read more about how disabled people are already unfairly treated under current law.) Not a very just system, I don’t think.

I’m a socialist because I believe in social justice: fairness and equality in society. And I think I’ve explained why I don’t think capitalism is the best model for this: ‘the love of money’ gets to people’s heads and makes them forget what humanity is all about. As a Christian, reminded of the importance of helping those less fortunate than myself, I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing anything other than supporting the side that puts society’s interests at heart. That’s a much better picture of society to strive for than the one that we currently have.