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 Some would say that the Bible is outdated and doesn’t fit our modern-day society but I would say that it is still relevant, thousands of years after its writers first penned the words that fill its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.

Why I don’t wear Make-up

I’ve addressed a lot of big issues up to now on my blog but this may well be the most controversial stance: I’m a girl approaching twenty and I don’t wear make-up. Before you have a heart attack I would prompt you to look at the description above and keep in mind that you’re on The Change Channel and the script over here is different to the general one that society tends to follow. There’s no doubt that deciding that make up is not for you is being very different, especially in our culture. It’s very daring.

You probably remember it yourself: the plentiful ticks of the clock that would go by before the girls would come out of the toilets (if you’re a guy); the hours that your peers would spend in front of the mirror caking themselves with make-up before they revealed themselves at school (if you’re a girl). I remember it for sure. Funny thing is, make-up was against the rules of our school – and it is for most schools in the country – but it was still seen as essential for a lot of the girls, especially from Year 9 (ages 13/14) upwards.

1. I like to be the real me.

 I remember the advertisement of this product that always used to come on when the teen TV had finished for the day and was replaced by teleshopping. It was called ‘Sheer Cover’ and it was a form of foundation that promised to cover all skin imperfections. What I found ironic was that their slogan was ‘Let the real you shine through’. Ermmm…

How is covering your entire face and often other parts of your body with make-up letting the real you shine through?

I don’t pretend to have perfect skin. I’m nineteen and we all know that those teenage years bring a lot of spots. Do I get annoyed when I spot yet another raised surface on my forehead? Yes, I do. Do I wish my skin was perfect? It certainly would be ideal. But why pretend? Everyone repeats that saying so often: ‘Nobody’s perfect.’ But with make-up we suddenly try to pretend that we are. Why?

I feel guilty even considering the prospect of painstakingly applying make-up to my face when I know that there are issues I need to address on the inside of me that are much more important. Studies show that the average woman spends over a year of her life applying make-up. Think what I could do in a year! I could travel the world, have a baby (but that’s not going to happen any time soon, don’t worry!), learn another language – I could spend that time developing my inner self to have ‘the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight’. (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1%20Peter%203%3A4)

If ever I became perfectly perfect then perhaps it would make sense for me to look perfect. But at present I can tell you I need more patience and faith and have other things to watch out for – so I’m not there yet.

Another reason I refrain from agonising over eye-liner and fumbling for the foundation is actually I think God did a pretty good job of making me on His own and He doesn’t need my help to create a masterpiece. I am ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’ and I know it. I believe every one of God’s creations is beautiful and precious – even if they don’t fit the standards of beauty that our society lays down as law. To read my treatise on the world’s botched-up perception of beauty click here: Why the World’s Definition of Beauty is All Wrong.

I’ve grown up in an environment where make-up wasn’t valued. My mum doesn’t wear make-up and my home church has never put it on the cards. But naturally, being a young girl in today’s society there did come a point where I started to think about it and wanted to be sure I was not wearing make-up because it was truly what I wanted to do and not something I felt was being forced upon me. I had a weakness for eye-shadow – it can be used to match your clothes really well – and after a friend told me I had “camel’s eyelashes” I thought perhaps mascara wouldn’t be so bad.

Way way back when I was in Year 7 a couple of my friends bought me make-up as birthday presents. I didn’t know what to do with the little packages, seeing as I didn’t wear make-up (and at eleven years old felt no reason to do so) – but as the products were powders my mum suggested I keep them and use them for art. Being a very creative person I did so, and you can still find eyeshadow in some of my most intricate work.

I never used the make-up for anything else. Until years later: I decided I would try it for myself so that I could say I knew for sure what my stance was. I fished out the make-up discs from my art supplies and applied some eyeshadow and the different shades of ‘lip shimmer’. It could be that it was my first time applying make-up and I didn’t know how to do it ‘just so’ but it didn’t appeal to me at all. The more I tried out the shades the more I felt like a clown. I looked fake. There were a load of colours painted on my face and it just didn’t feel like me. I stared at myself in the mirror and blinked back at my reflection. Then I decided that make-up wasn’t for me. Eyeshadow might be able to match my outfit but my face wasn’t a handbag or a dress in need of being accessorised. It was a natural part of me and I wanted to keep it that way.

2. I want people to love and respect me for who I am, not what I look like.

It’s my approach to life in general: I appreciate much more when someone compliments me on something I’ve done rather than how I look. It means so much more to me when someone tells me they loved something I’ve written or hearing me sing than when someone tells me I look good in the dress I have on. I’m not saying compliments on appearance are bad. What I am saying is I did not do any work to get the face I did – God did all of that work and I can take no credit for it. But I do work hard at my singing and writing and other skills so encouragement on that front is something that I had something to do with.

It’s something I’ve discussed with friends before: would you want your lover to wear make-up or would you as a lady wear make-up for your beau? I’ve been particularly interested to hear the male point of view – and actually, my guy friends have told me they much prefer the natural look on a girl. It shows that she’s comfortable in her own skin and feels free to be herself.

On the other hand, girls my age have told me they wouldn’t wear too much make-up on their first date with a guy because they wouldn’t want him to expect more than he was getting. I find that quite intriguing, upon considering what happens on the next dates and when you eventually get married: do you have to make sure you have on that same amount of make-up as you had on that first date so that he’s never disappointed?

And what if he falls in love with you only because of the face you had on when he first met you? We already know how much our culture values physical attractiveness in women. When you’re wearing full foundation, concealer, blusher, eyeliner, mascara, eyeshadow, lipstick, even fake eyelashes (!), can you really be sure that it’s anything but your decked-out face that has drawn him over? He might hear you speak and actually not care about what you’re saying but linger around because he thinks you look ‘sexy’.

Of course physical attraction is an important part of a relationship. But I can say without faltering that if a man were to fall in love with me solely because he found me attractive I would immediately turn the other way. I am not just a body. I have a brain and emotions and talents that go beyond the exterior, as does any other woman. We’re picking up from the bottom of the pile if we go for guys that don’t see that.   

3.  It’s a business that prides itself on making women feel bad about themselves.

It’s funny to me that feminism deals with so many other issues but neglects to talk about cosmetics. Like so many other social phenomena, make-up is the result of a male-dominated narrative. I can give you many examples throughout history that illustrate how when men said something it came to be and was accepted as fact. Take for instance the narrative in the 50s that dictated that women could be no more than wives and mothers. That was said by men who didn’t like the fact that women were doing the same job as them and doing just as well, and could eventually get to the stage where they were earning more than their husbands! How about shaving? Few people know that shaving for women only came about in the Roaring 20s, when sleeveless dresses became the fashion and suddenly the under-arm hair women had had for centuries became ‘unsightly’ and ‘objectionable’. Why? Because razor companies (owned by men, of course) wanted to create a new market to squeeze the money out of – and the perfect way was to make women feel that in paying their way and shaving away they were becoming more feminine. In the meantime guys’ bodily hair isn’t spurned at all. Apparently hair on women is unhygienic but on men it’s just plain clean. (Do you know I was once asked by a guy – at secondary school – if it was true that women grew hair under their armpits?)

It’s the same with make-up. Do you ever see make-up marketed at men? Cosmetics industries swallow up billions of dollars each year by telling women that using their products will give them power, make them stand out and will give them irresistible confidence. Is it any wonder then that women often feel low self-esteem without “putting their face on”? (Do you realise how loaded that term is? We’ve gotten to the point where women don’t even see their natural assets as worthy of being called a face…) You’ve seen the stories about women who never leave the house without make-up on. I’ve even heard depressing cases of women who get out of bed before their husbands stir so that they can put on their make-up afresh before their spouse sees them. (I can’t even…) Not everyone has it that bad, admittedly, but there are still very few girls I know who won’t leave the house without any make-up at all – just a bit of mascara and eyeliner and that’s all – but they will never be seen without it. I suppose there’s another problem with wearing make-up regularly – when you don’t wear any people don’t recognise you.

“Make-up makes me feel more confident”. That’s what many people tell me. More confident. The use of those two words to me indicates that most don’t feel confident enough without the stuff. Girls typically put it on to attract the attention of the guys as they’re told that this is the way to capture a man’s heart – or they may put it on so that they feel they “measure up” to the same standard as the other girls. I didn’t wear any makeup to my prom and I remember thinking that I wouldn’t look as good as the other girls. My mum assured me I looked beautiful just the way I was and I soon forget my concerns. In retrospect I realise that my qualms were just plain silly: what’s the point in competing over how we look? What a sad life.

4.  Make-up causes reduced self-esteem.

Remember the #nomakeupselfie campaign for breast cancer awareness that took social media by storm last year? I thought it was great, in that it pushed women and young girls to present themselves as they truly are on a platform. I was proud to see my friends wiping off the stuff. They looked beautiful and they didn’t need make-up to prove that.

So that was great. But the campaign did get me thinking about the social implications that it suggested. Usually when people fundraise for charity they do something difficult and out-of-the-ordinary. Here taking one picture of themselves makeup-free was what girls and women were doing to raise money – and what that showed me is that it really is an out-of-the-ordinary and difficult thing for females to do now, to choose not to wear le maquillage. So much so that many of the girls and women that posted pictures of themselves did so with make-up on: they just couldn’t take off that mascara or eye-liner – or even lipstick – for just one picture in the comfort of their own homes. Others just replied saying they didn’t think anyone needed to see their “disgusting face”. What a sad state of affairs.

 5. It’s actually quite physiologically harmful.

Il trucco (that’s what it’s called in Italian – literally meaning, ‘the trick’) does in fact cause quite a lot of physical damage. Covering up imperfections only makes them worse. Foundation blocks up pores and hinders the skin from breathing, which can often lead to acne and dermatitis. The vast array of chemical substances in cosmetic products have also been linked to health issues, surprisingly serious: cancer; hormonal interference; effects to a woman’s reproductive system; liver problems… Chemical impurities in cosmetics shockingly even include the toxic substance mercury, which is easily absorbed by the skin and can lead to kidney damage; and impair the nervous system, and can even interfere with brain development in unborn and young children. Ironically for a substance which is supposed to make you stay looking young – the presence of mineral oil in cosmetics can inhibit skin function and cell development, resulting in premature aging. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/04/10/you-have-the-right-to-know-17-chemicals-to-avoid-in-cosmetic-and-personal-care-products/

6.  It costs a lot of money!

The average British woman spends £9,525.91 on make-up in her lifetime. Need I say more? That is a heck of a lot money! That could fund a whole year of university tuition with money left to spare!

7.  Going make-up FREE is extremely liberating!

‘Makeup free’ used to be used by that oh-so-notorious British tabloid The Daily Mail together with ‘tired’ and ‘haggard’ to slate women who decided to ditch the rouge. I still have a lot of issues with that paper but I have noticed that they have now taken to praising women who go out make-up free as looking ‘radiant’ and ‘natural’. I hope to see this attitude welcomed more in the public vein. I’ve never worn an inch of foundation in all my nineteen years and I have found it extremely liberating. I can leap out of the house without thinking about having to flick my eyelashes up – or draw my eyebrows on. (Seriously I can’t believe that’s a thing now?) When people look at me I know they’re looking at me and not a fake, “improved” version. I gain hours every day by not having to apply and re-apply – and remove my make-up. I breathe confidence rather than have it stifled under a mask that clogs my pores.

I may still have spots that appear without being asked but actually I know they’re not that big a deal. They show that I’m a normal human being with imperfections, and the fact that my friends treat me in the same way whether or not I have an uneven skin tone shows that they value me for who I am and not for what I look like. Going makeup-free truly does make you feel free, my friend!

I’m pro-life. And I don’t see why that’s a problem.

Quite a few weeks ago now at Oxford, I went to a panel discussion hosted by Oxford Students for Life, a society which takes the minority view on issues like abortion and assisted suicide in a very liberal nation. I was very frustrated after the discussion was over and thought of writing a post right there and then as writing has always provided me a form of release – but with the craziness of Oxford terms I didn’t have the time to set aside to write a post. Now I’m on my Easter break, so…

Let me first provide you with the background to explain why I was so frustrated. This panel discussion gave the floor to five women – and these women were all pro-life feminists. Yes, pro-life and feminist. There is no reason why those two words need be incompatible, contrary to one attendee’s attack: “How can you call yourself a feminist and sit up there and say those things?” That was the kind of attitude that annoyed me.

A short while before I made my way over to the event I heard that people were planning to protest about the event taking place. Not again, I thought. The previous term Oxford University had made the headlines yet again, for shutting down a debate (also hosted by OSFL) on abortion because of fears posed to the ‘security’ of students. It was yet another example of how views that differ from the norm get shut down and deemed invalid. On the other hand, the Oxford Union invited the far-right party leader of the Front National in France to speak uninterrupted for 50 minutes and claimed her right to free speech. Double standards anyone? So someone exposed as having racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic views is given one of the most prominent platforms in the world to speak – with little thought given to the pre-existing status of the university as notoriously institutionally racist and a place where ethnic minorities often feel marginalised (don’t get me started on how Cecil Rhodes, the infamous racist and imperialist behind the colonisation of much of Southern Africa , is prized by the university  – there’s a scholarship and a library in his name and all), but peaceful people who want to talk about abortion and why they believe it’s harmful to society are told they’re the ones that are going to cause ‘mental and physical harm? 

Being pro-life means that you value a child’s right to life. Feminism means you believe in the equality of the sexes. I do not in any way see how you can’t subscribe to both those outlooks.

If you’ve followed other posts that I’ve written then you’ll already know why I identify as a feminist. What I’m going to explain today is why I am pro-life: that is, why I don’t believe in abortion. I hope that you will hear me out (or, read me out, as the case may be).

1. ABORTION TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING.

Abortion is the taking away of a life. That’s usually called murder. But in the case of an unborn child many countries deem termination in a different light. Apparently if you don’t have a voice you don’t count as a human being. Many will state matter-of-factly: “Oh it’s just a ball of cells”. I would argue – and scientific research would validate my stance – that from the moment the sperm cell fertilises the egg cell a life has been formed. And thus begins one of God’s greatest gifts to nature: the gift of life.

2 . IT'S A MARK OF WORRYING INDIVIDUALISM.

I don’t believe in abortion because I don’t believe I have more rights than any other human being. The same affinity that I feel with victimised Muslims even though I’m a Christian I feel with unborn babies – and that affinity is the web of humanity.

Unfortunately however, I feel the individualism that our society prioritises: the ‘me before anyone else’ attitude which revolves around ‘me, myself and I’ means that often the solidarity the concept of human solidarity goes outta the window. Our interests matter more than anyone else’s. So of course in this context our plans to continue with higher education or get promoted at work become more important than an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy. And hey, abortion’s very easy to get nowadays! On average around 190,000 abortions are carried out each year in England and Wales alone. In spite of the fact that technically, the 1967 Abortion Act did not legalise abortion – rather it provided a legal defence for those implementing it – termination is seen as a quick fix for many, with the latest statistics even revealing that many now use it as a form of contraception. The conditions which allow for abortion are ambiguous, with the first being that continuing with the pregnancy involves ‘a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman, or her existing children, than having a termination’. 

This is so undefined that many exploit the system citing reasons such as "my friends would get to party all night whilst I’d have to stay at home looking after my kid" as the causal factor for depression. And these are typically young teenage girls who have no problem saying yes to sex, just take issue with the consequence that could come with it. I remember once reading about a girl who by the age of fifteen had gone through with an abortion four times (despite the fact that the legal age of consent in the UK is 16), with one being the termination of a foetus conceived during a one-night stand.

It does seem rather absurd to me that some Oxford students involved in shutting down the OSFL debate some months ago used the mantra ‘my uterus is not up for debate’ as their reason. Abortion is a global societal issue and has real consequences for the mother, the father, society at large – not to mention the tiny foetus whose respiratory and circulatory system gets shut down.

Do you know that 97% of abortions in the UK are funded by the National Health Service? Surely that makes it an issue that anybody paying taxes has a right to discuss.

3. IS IT REALLY PRO-CHOICE?

The people that condemn those like me who take a pro-life stance on the issue insist that we’re being unfair and that we’re not taking into account the genuine difficulties that some women may face that push them to have an abortion. I remember one of the things that really frustrated me at this panel discussion I attended was the complete unwillingness by some who disagreed with the speakers’ point of view to hear them out and mull over what they were trying to say: which, put simply, was that the right to life supersedes any other right and that abortion is harmful to all those involved.

I’ve often thought that ‘pro-choice’ as an ideology was rather unsuitably named. Is it really a choice? We know the embryo in the womb certainly doesn’t have a say in whether or not he or she can be born. But does the mother really have a say? Anecdotes and official reports from the British Medical Association would seem to prove otherwise. I have heard cases of women only being given leaflets on termination by GPs and other medical professionals, with absolutely no information provided about the other option – going through with the pregnancy with adequate help along the way. Young vulnerable women often feel pressured into getting rid of their babies, especially when they are often conscious of the very real possibility that their partners might leave them if they discovered they would have to take on the role of a father. Often women turn up at abortion clinics because they have explicitly been told by their boyfriends that if they go through with the pregnancy then that will be the end of their relationship. Under such circumstances I don’t really see how it’s the woman’s choice.

4. IT PROMOTES DANGEROUS ATTITUDES TOWARDS CERTAIN STIGMATISED GROUPS.

Something that really moved me emotionally as I listened to these pro-life women tell their stories was the recurring theme of termination as being targeted at particular groups already under-valued in society. No-one really talks about it and few people know it – but abortions are disproportionately carried out on foetuses that screening indicates show signs of disability. Babies with Down’s Syndrome and even cleft lips (which can be surgically altered after birth) are deemed unworthy of being brought into the world. This is unbelievably sad and says a lot about our society’s views on disabled people. Shockingly, unlike the termination of any other pregnancy, the abortion of disabled foetuses can be carried out at any point up till birth. Those that disagree with me may say that letting someone who would have an awful life off having to live it is the kindest thing to do.  But who can say what an awful life is? I’ve gone through a lot of things in my life that if you knew the whole of you might be surprised I was still alive (in fact it’s something I wonder at myself, but I have an answer – God has been the strength of my life), but in spite of everything I would say I’m still a very bubbly and happy person and have a lot of things to be thankful for! Why shouldn’t someone born with a severe disability be able to say the same of themselves? Nick Vujicic is a motivational speaker who was born with neither arms nor legs yet has overcome towering difficulties through his faith in Christ and is now happily married with a son! http://www.attitudeisaltitude.com/

Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson is another example that ‘disabled’ people are very able. She’s a paralysed and wheelchair-bound former athlete who has won eleven gold medals in the Paralympics and has managed to do a lot of things that people told her she couldn’t do (including having a daughter) despite being told by some people that she’d ‘be better off dead.’ I attended a talk she gave on assisted suicide in Oxford not too long ago – and I was particularly struck by her point that ending someone’s life solely on the grounds that their disability affords them a different quality of life only increases hostility to disabled people, who, already subjected to a great deal of discrimination, are now more frequently and more forcibly being told to go and kill themselves. The same can be said of abortion that is carried out to end a disabled foetus’ life, I would argue: the effects will be felt by those who do make it into the world and grow up.

With Baroness Grey-Thompson after her talk. When I introduced myself to her I described myself as "a lover of athletics and a hater of injustice." She approved.

Moreover, as much as science has advanced, humans still make mistakes. One of the speakers at the panel discussion gave a personal account of how her mum had been pushed to have an abortion when she was pregnant with her son as doctors believed he would be born with Down’s Syndrome – but many years on he shows no signs of it!

It’s scary how some people will take things into their own hands when given the power to do so. One of the guest speakers, who works as a paediatrician at Great Ormond Street Hospital, told us of reports that had revealed that many doctors were signing the forms required to be completed before a termination can take place even before they had met the woman involved to assess her mental state – as required by law. Another common occurrence is that often ethnic minority communities are targeted as in need of an abortion and are discouraged from giving birth.

Some in the audience laughed at this suggestion and even declined to lend an ear to the idea as it was further explained. The speaker that introduced this theme spoke about how in the United States, more deprived areas, often populated by ethnic minority citizens, are strategically fitted with abortion clinics – with a disproportionate number in these places in comparison with more well-off parts of the country.  People have noted the roots that the Planned Parenthood association in America has in eugenics.

Racial discrepancies and the targeting of physically impaired babies aren’t the only discrepancies we see in abortion figures. That’s right: girls are also disproportionately targeted for terminations. Ironic really, isn’t it? The same people that tell us that as feminists we should be in favour of abortion are supporting a procedure which has enabled the “disappearance” of between 1,500 and 4,700 females from the national census records of England and Wales  (The Lost Girls) and thousands more in countries like India and China.

Such discrepancies would appear to point to evidence of the belief that some people are more worthy of living than others. This is an incredibly harmful position for a society to take.

5. HARM TO THE MOTHER AND OTHERS

Few people broach the issue but it’s clear that abortion often results in serious damage to the potential mother. The physical and mental damage suffered by the mother as a result of termination, I would argue, often exceeds the physical and mental trauma that the pregnancy itself may bring on. 

Over the years I have read distressing stories of women who went through with abortion and have regretted it deeply ever since. Post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and clinical depression are some of the many emotional hardships that women face post-abortion: the grisly image of their babies being grabbed at and dismembered by the doctor’s forceps is too much for them to bear. Women who go through with abortions are up to six times more likely to commit suicide.

Everyone talks about the ‘quick fix’ that abortion provides without talking about the multiple injuries that it engenders. The doctors that hand women leaflets on termination but not on the support available during pregnancy or the possibility of adoption tell them that they will feel no pain, the process will be over quickly, the baby’s just a ball of cells, and at their age it is the best thing for them to do. In my view these are all a bunch of lies. The abortion procedure can very often go wrong and can be painful for the woman. Here’s one American woman’s account of her distressing experience: ‘The nurses caused me to bleed, then they called the doctor on call. They told him I came in bleeding, to make it look like I had tried to do the abortion myself. I never even saw the doctor.  I will never forget the pain. When I woke up, I was having contractions like being in labour.  Two weeks later, I had to go to an OB/Gyn because I had a bad infection. He had to cauterize my uterus, which he did without anaesthesia. I remember screaming, and he told me I was making too much noise.’ You can read her story in full here: If I Could do it Over: Silent No More Awareness

People try to hide it but it is a fact that abortion can cause complications which may lead to miscarriages: permanent damage to the uterus is a common result of the procedure. The more abortions a woman has (and many do have more than one), the more her fertility reduces. As well as infertility, sexual intercourse can often become painful for the woman post-abortion.

That’s not to mention the problems that it causes for others directly involved. With the mantra: ‘my body, my choice’, some fathers feel the woman’s word is against theirs and resign themselves to losing a potential child. Although it may not have been their body which had a life sucked out of it, male partners do often suffer from depression after abortion. Relationships are poisoned and often eventually end in divorce. http://www.birthmothers.org/extras/abortion-risks.htm

Studies have even shown that there are even adverse effects for the children that follow an abortion.  Case studies and research indicate that if a mother has had an abortion, this fact will be communicated in one way or another to the surviving siblings. The thought that must earn their right to live leads to thoughts like: ‘Why am I alive, and not my brother or sister? I don't deserve to be alive. I can't enjoy life when I know that my parents might have killed me. They arranged for the death of my brothers or sisters, who were probably better than me.’ Sibling Survivors

As well as the immediate family, abortion harms all. It shows a flippant attitude to the preciousness of life, where it is no longer seen as a gift, but instead a burden which we should be able to rid ourselves of as we like.

6.  CHILDLESS COUPLES ARE ALL AROUND.

This attitude is particularly upsetting for couples who long to have children but cannot due to genetic problems which may leave them infertile. It seems ironic really, that millions of children are being killed off before they’re born every year whilst there are loving couples who would give their right arm to be handed the gift of a child. In the United States alone, there are around 2 million infertile couples waiting to adopt. Studies show that for every one child put up for adoption, there are thirty-six couples.

I know what you might be thinking: That’s all very well and good Ruth, but what about rape? Surely you don’t expect a woman to have to go through carrying her rapist’s child? I don’t pretend that this is an easy thing to do: we all know that rape is a vile act and having a constant reminder of such a horrific event is not something I would wish upon anybody. But as the speakers at the panel discussion I went to emphasised, abortion is harmful to all those involved. The effects that may follow an abortion could well be worse than the act of rape itself. Adoption provides a way for the woman to give her child a safe home without having to handle the hurt that comes with rape. But some women do more than just have the child – they go on to raise the child that has resulted from their violation and see that child as a beautiful thing to have come out of a horrible time.

I was deeply moved by this story I read – written by a girl who was conceived through rape: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/testimony.aspx?ID=1154. I’m sure you will be too.

A harrowing phenomenon which no-one really seems to consider is the cases of abortions that don’t go as planned.  As in, the babies survive. Shockingly, health services typically leave the babies to die in such cases – there have been cases where new-borns have been left in dark rooms and survived for as long as 22 hours but have been ignored as they cry at the top of their lungs for human aid. Then there are the other cases – where the dark shadows have been conquered by a light has come in the form of a kind soul who wants the child to live. I would recommend that you read this story, written by an abortion survivor. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/testimony.aspx?ID=2208

7. LIFE IS A BEAUTIFUL THING.

I’m pro-life and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Thank you for taking the time to read this and not shutting me down. 

Edit: 30th Dec 2016 - Yesterday I came across these deeply moving chats about abortion, and I would highly recommend that you take a look at them:

Part 1: https://youtu.be/KrwScF89zWk

Part 2: https://youtu.be/trmAhxYAKPo

So here’s why I don’t drink…

Before you start reading I’ll just take a moment to remind you that the writer is someone that dares to be different. Right, so now we’ve got that clear, I’ll tell you why I choose to do what almost no other nineteen year old in the United Kingdom would choose for themselves – I live a teetotal life. That means I don’t consume a drop of alcohol. I don’t drink.

If you didn’t already know, Britain is one of the countries worst affected by binge-drinking. ‘Getting drunk’ is a pastime like playing football. I’m not exaggerating: I’m a university student and I can tell you I see alcohol in its worst light on a weekly basis. ‘Pre-drinking’ is a thing: that’s when people drink copious amounts of alcohol in the corridors (and make a big mess and a lot of noise in the process) BEFORE heading to the clubs where they drink more still behind the bar.

Some 40,000 people die each year in the UK alone due to alcohol-related problems. A&E services are clogged up with intoxicated men and women (and boys and girls – under-age drinking is rife over here) each week, talk less of the domestic abuse and street brawls that ensue – which can lead to murder – as a result of drink.

1. Health

Health concerns seem the most obvious reason to stay away from the bottle. We all know that alcohol poses a plethora of serious threats to health. The list of complications that can be born from alcohol consumption is way longer than my arm: there’s brain damage; liver disease; multiple cancers; increased infection; high blood pressure; pancreatitis; stomach problems; seizures; cardiovascular disease; reduced fertility; depression; anxiety… And there is of course the danger of foetal alcohol syndrome for the unborn child. So it seems obvious why I would choose not to drink alcohol really – I value my life!

Remember that saying: ‘Your body is a temple’? That derives from the Bible, which says, ‘Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own […] therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.’ I reckon the Holy Spirit deserves a much cleaner temple than one blotched with liquor. 

2. Loss of Self-Control

As obvious as it is that alcohol can be lethal health-wise, of recent that has actually not been the main driving force behind sticking to decision to be teetotal. Rather, it’s been seeing my friends drink and watching the unimaginable change that comes over them as they bezzle the booze. They go from articulate, intelligent people to kids with slurred speech. Inhibitions are lowered. I’ve found myself in some rather awkward situations where guy friends have forgotten about that social rule which treasures personal space and have actually made me feel quite uncomfortable. When a guy has had a bit to drink he’s much more likely to start touching you up. Decreased cognitive functioning caused by drinking means people don’t make decisions with the same clarity as they would were they sober. Sexual assault and rape are common after-effects of inebriation. So are domestic abuse and homicide.

Some effects of alcohol are more sobering than others. Some people just behave stupidly. Like, they start dancing like maniacs or they chatter absolute rubbish.  Sometimes their behaviour is a bit more deviant than that… Examples: running in front of a car; stripping completely naked in a public place; shouting nonsensical things at 100 decibels… I’ve had a couple of unpleasant experiences at uni where drunk people returning from a late night out clubbing have tried to get into my room. The first time it was two guys who decided that they wanted to bring people cookers from the nearby kitchens as a very strange 3am present. The second time the dude that lived a floor above me was so drunk he couldn’t tell the difference between his room and mine. That was at four o’clock.

I may be a pretty weird person on a day-to-day basis but I like to be in control of my weirdness. I like to know what I’m doing and be in charge of my thoughts and actions. And so I steer clear of drinking.

Some people tell me that they know their limits and will only get a bit tipsy and then they know to stop. But really I haven’t seen any evidence of this in real life. Most of the time my friends have absolutely no recollection of their behaviour the night before they got drunk – other than that they woke up fully clothed on their bedroom floor (or on someone else’s floor) with a splitting hangover. They don’t remember the things they said or the way they talked or how they walked. But apparently they had a good night.

What’s my point? My point is, how can you know when you need to stop when drinking completely clouds your judgement and your memory? Can you really remember once you’ve had a few that you’ve already downed four alcoholic drinks? Do you even care by that stage?

As someone that’s consistently sober at social gatherings I notice the changes in the behaviour of those that I know well – and I dare say they don’t. 

3. I don’t need to drink to have fun.

A lot of the people I speak to about my decision not to drink stress that drinking is just a social activity. Here in the UK it’s standard to go off to the pub to have a drink with your friends. Drinking makes you more confident and that bit merrier, they tell me. Do you know what I think of that? Genuinely I think it’s sad. Why should a person feel inadequate and unable to have a good time with their friends without first having had a glass of wine – or something stronger?

I think this excuse is all down to social pressure. Few people want to be the only sober person at a party. And I can understand why; I think I’ve already explained in enough detail how distressing it is for me watching my drunk friends become different people right before my eyes. But honestly I can tell you, when I have no need to worry about one of my friends, I have a great time even without gulping down the strong stuff. I love spending time with my friends because they’re lovely, interesting and funny. We can joke together, recount stories and have a good laugh: and not one of those activities has to be coupled with drinking.

Recently at my college in Oxford I proposed that we should have non-alcoholic “posh” drinks at our formal dinners as well as the red and white wine that is served – typically the only other option available has been water. I appreciate that having a glass of champagne can make an evening seem more special – I just prefer my spruced-up version to be a good glass of Shloer or Valentino! Good old grape juice. I’m glad to say the motion was passed unanimously and hopefully formals will have those options on their menu cards soon!

4. My money can be better spent elsewhere.

I don't pretend to know the figures for how much alcohol can cost you in a week but I know it's a lot. Ironically, the same students that protest (within reason) about tuition fees being ridiculously high are prepared to while away their cash on the booze. I'm a student and we're always poor. I don't need to make myself any poorer.

Plus, the cost in terms of time lost as a result of drink is something else to bear. Reports show that almost 15 million working days are lost each year in the UK due to alcohol-linked problems. That's usually because the employee or student has a hangover and can't get out of bed.

5. It smells bad!

I’m being serious – that stuff stinks! Stand next to someone with alcohol breath and tell me you don’t agree. OK so technically this isn’t a reason I don’t drink – I’m already put off it – but just the smell seems enough of an explanation. I’ll tell you a true story which demonstrates the extent of my antipathy for that smell.

In the queue for supper at my college, where all meals containing alcohol are usually marked with ‘ALC’, one evening I served myself a sort of creamy sauce. I wrinkled up my noise suspiciously before serving it but as there had been no signal that it contained alcohol I poured it generously over my meal. But the whiff of that odour was so poignant that I still asked at the till just to make sure it didn’t contain any alcohol. The catering manager himself wasn’t sure and he went to ask the chef – after which I was informed the sauce (and the only other available sauce) both had alcohol in them. The catering manager kindly offered to serve me another dish without the sauce.

Now I know what you’re likely thinking at this moment – My gosh Ruth that was so OTT! You know you can’t get drunk on a bit of white-wine based sauce! I know – I’m not that naïve – but it is saying something that I could have noticed the smell of the alcohol (which people usually say is all burned off during the cooking process) in a sauce that has been left for some time to simmer on the hob. Frankly I just dislike the idea of drinking alcohol so much that even a few millilitres of it would be too much for me.

It’s certainly an anomalous stance to take but I take to the teetotal life! It’s better for my emotional and physical well-being and moreover, I believe God prefers it. (For those that have been mulling over the account in the Bible where Jesus turns water into wine, this is a very interesting read: http://www.johnhamelministries.org/wine_lie_Jesus.htm).