We're not 'Putin' up with this.

No longer protected by the law, the gay men and woman of Russia have been shunted into a category that sees them treated like second class citizens. Scores of horrific videos, uploaded by apparent 'vigilantes', that depict homosexuals being humiliated, subjected to violent behaviour and tortured have been storming around the internet; yet although Western society is quick to protest such monstrous behaviour, the international community seems to be sitting idly by. 

However, recently there have been rumblings that action should be taken and that Russia, who is due to host the Winter Olympics, oughta to be boycotted as a sign of protest to this blatant breach of human rights. But would boycotting really have such a profound effect? 

As gripping as a international boycott does seem, the international community needs to do more than boycott the Olympics, as boycotts are rarely affective. Not only this, it will likely have more of a negative effect on the LGBT community; in fact it may even spur on this hatful treatment. 

Without a doubt if you were to walk along the streets of Moscow or St Petersburg, or for that matter simply Google the words 'Russia' and 'homosexual', you'll find yourself  agreeing that homophobia is ubiquitous under Putin's bigoted rule. Simply boycotting alone will not suffice; if profound change is going to happen we need to do two things. The first is engagement:

Having leaders of western world engage and confront Putin may not be as glamorous or headline grappling, but it will establish an international dialogue; force Russia to see that Her behaviour is a breach of human rights and that it is not acceptable. But will Putin just be invasive? Perhaps, but if there's a boycott Putin could see this as a reason to take this bigotry and hateful behaviour further. The more people that denounce Russia's treatment of the LGBT community 

the more pressure Putin will feel.

The second thing is to show Russia that homosexuality isn't a 'Western invention' and show how far we, The UK, have progressed socially over the last decade. Section 28 was the United Kingdom's version of Russian law, and after struggling for years the majority of people look back and are (and should be) appalled by how the LGBT community were treated here.

Equality is a slow moving beast, but by using our history as an example we may bring about some change. Russian law demonises homosexuality; it stops people knowing what it is so they live in a world of ignorance and if you compare it with what Section 28 was like when it was first introduced they are nearly identical. We need to remember our own history and show it to Russia.

World leaders need to stand up for the LGBT community, international and especially in Russia, because, although we think we are living in the 21st century, in many places we are not.

Twerking, Miley Cyrus & the downfall of the English language.

‘Twerking’ has been added to the Oxford English Dictionary as it’s generated enough ‘currency’ to merit inclusion. That’s it, I’m bringing back Latin and we’ll start the entire language all over again.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, last year the word ‘twerking’ was used with such frequency it generated enough currency to be considered for a place in the prestigious pages of the Dictionary.  Don’t sound the alarm just yet because, to be fair, this word-related catastrophe shouldn’t come as too much of a shock, considering that since its conception the Internet, and mobile phones alike, have birthed some truly horrific word-mutations that are now scuttling about the cyber-globe and we just sit and watch as the dignity of our language melts away like ice cream on a hot stove.

Now I don’t want to point the finger or blame anyone, but if I did said finger would most likely navigate towards Disney’s latest car-crash Miley Cyrus, whose recent stripper-like display at the VMAs caused the word to describe the raunchy dance move known as ‘twerking’ to be used a lot more than it ought to be.

Before I gathered my ‘pitch’-fork (see what I did there?) and formed the militant wing of the Language Protection Society, I remembered that for centuries those in the dazzling spotlight of fame have always held massive sway and influence over popular culture and language –I’ve heard more than a few scholars harp on’th about some lad called Shakespeare – and that the online banter of the internet-savvy has been slowly colliding with the austere and sophisticated English language for years.

 ‘To Google’ is now a universally recognised verb; a series of vowel-free abbreviations and acronyms dominate ‘txt spk’ and grammar has started packing its bags as our relationship with it just isn’t the same anymore – believe me it’s us, not you. Without a doubt the internet is becoming a medium for the birth of new languages and dialects. 

Language itself has always changed and evolved, or de-evolved if you’re unfortunate enough to be staggering about the streets of Glasgow on a Friday evening, but the internet has rapidly sped up that process and because so many people have access to it 24/7 it is a lot more noticeable. Being well spoken and good at word play has always earned you praise and I feel the same rule applies for the internet; people like to show how adept they are at manipulating language online, for example cat memes.

I am massive fan of the English language, I have several posters of it on my wall and, yeah, perhaps I do get a bit emotional over abused commas and the incorrect use of ‘there’, their’ and ‘they’re’ but to wage war against internet slang would be a losing battle as every social media website is littered with it. I often find that the more glasses of wine I toss back the more my inner stickler rears its pedantic head, but in general I’ve learned to be rather nonchalant every time the internet goblins coin a new phrase or word. And for the sake of your sanity and data usage I suggest you to do.

On an entirely different note, I believe that Cyrus should be repeatedly bludgeoned over the head with a dictionary and her access to Disneyland revoked. Not because she’s a few weeks away from a career on a poll, but because of the influence her ‘dance moves’ at the VMAs are having on the English language. That is truly a bad influence for children. 

Twenteen - the hardship of being in your twenties.

Before you read on, this is an opinion  piece and is meant for entertainment purposes, aka it is littered with generalisations which will undoubtedly rattle a cage or two. So, before you continue, I highly recommend  ingesting a grain of salt.

As you zig-zag through your teenage years you'll hear many an elderly person harp on and on about how the hardest part of your life is being a teenager. Well, it isn't. Trust me. 

Sure, there are a few hormonal hurdles you have to clear, not to mention a couple of awkward and embarrassing social discrepancies you have to stagger away from; but the brutal reality is that as you

anxiously watch time tick forward, ever approaching the stroke of midnight, on the eve of your twentieth  birthday, you slowly feel the electric-spark of youth fade away as you slip into a decade of overwhelming uncertainty, a much slowed down metabolism, a foggy future and the possibility that you might be alone. Forever.

In your twenties you're trapped in some sort time-flux between being a real grown up and being a petulant teen. Forced to embrace the worst of both worlds you're left feeling  inadequate. 

The adults greet your every thought and suggestion about your future with either a disapproving stare or a patronising tap on the shoulder.  The teenagers, who merely glare at you with a degree of cynicism and pity, have pretty much written you off as a useless fossil.  If you dare mutter the horrifying digits of your actual age to  either group, whether it be during a grown up discussion or whilst giving sound advice to a youth, you get stared at like a car crash and will most definitely be verbally harassed. Okay, comic exaggeration, but you get the drift. Neither world wants us. 

Being in your twenties is the very definition of social alienation. You're left to potter along by yourself, with the odd negative comment being tossed at you by relatives, whilst you try to get your affairs in order and  deal with the sticky transition between being a kidulthood and adulthood.   

First you have to decide what direction you're taking with your life. At least twice.  Whether that be after your graduate and are trying to find a career/job that suits you, or start a family etc Either way, once these longstanding anxieties about your career have been quelled you get to move onto the future of your romantic life. 

At any point during your twenties, most people go through a 'everything must go' emotional liquidation. I've not yet had mine yet, but I presume it'll play out something like the following: I'll remove every person that no longer has any use, or has ran out of battery, from my life and begin relentlessly hunting, ahem, I mean searching for my future partner. Obviously I need to remove all the junk and riffraff from my life to find myself a beau. There hasn't been room for him that's all. Either that or I'll line up pictures of my ex's with little pros and cons lists bellow their photos and decide that way. 

Should you be fortunate enough to track down your real love, it's swiftly followed by the irksome, and dooming, question of 'when're you going to start a family.' I've had it before. I've bee accosted by a flock of nagging relatives bombarding me with pleas for a grandchild, nephew, niece. I was tempted to burst into 'Girls Just Want To Have Fun.' I don't want any waens until I can at least afford my phone bill regularly. 

Without a doubt though, if you're in you twenties you're going to feel like this is your last chance to experiment, find love, explore and party. Personally I'm trying to cram all the above in whilst setting myself up for 'real life' which starts after your twenties (that's scientifically proven of course.) 

Apparently though, and I've kissed  enough middle-aged people to testify  to this, restaurants, cafes and clubs continue to let people over 29 through their doors. They even serve them alcohol. So, hopefully that alleviates some of the stress. 

At some point during your twenties, someone should appear with a memo that reads: "You're going to get old pretty soon and you will one day die. You may be cool for now, but get your affairs in order. Consider this your notice. Sincerely, Real Life."

"You're nothing without a little bipolar, darling."

Over the past few years a lot of attention and publicity has been drawn towards to depression, bi-polar and other mental health issues due to the internet, television and celebrities that suffer from these conditions. Some would say that these conditions and their suffers never had it so good; but in terms of public reactions and perception, I feel it would be more accurate to say that it's never had it so bad (sneering remarks, disbelief and hostile reactions.) 

When bipolar sufferer Kerry Katona had her mental breakdown on morning television it was mocked, sneered at and vicious remarks were tossed at her. Was this because of her condition 'bipolar'? It's something that seems to be everywhere these days; perhaps people are tired of hearing about it? Or, was she mocked because of her celebrity status? Either way the media had a field day and if you're sat at home, feeling the way Kerry does whist simultaneously hearing your friends jesting about her/witnessing the reactions she received from the public, you aren't exactly going to admit that's how you feel, are you?

One in five people suffer from depression in the UK; and out of the five, only two are likely to seek professional help and ask for support - but what about the other three who just suffer in silence? More importantly why don't they raise their hand and ask for help? Woman are more likely to be treated for a mental health problems than men, a statistic that ties in with another one: that men are three times more likely to commit suicide than women. Why do people feel they have to endure this without getting any support? Probably because they fear being seen as weak and don't want to be subjected to ridicule. 

There's a horrid stigma attached the phrase 'mental health problems.' Undeniably the attitude towards it has drastically changed for the better over the last decade; people are more aware of it now and see that it is a real health issue - you could go as far as to say it's a disability. But there are those who aren't understanding; that pass judgement or mutter the words 'he/she needs to just get on with it.' To those people I ask this: would you tell a cripple to get up and walk?

Such a bold comparison will likely provoke negative reactions and cries of protest from some people. If a person is crippled its not something they can help or simply get over; and you're right, it isn't. It's a horrible affliction but so is depression. Just because it doesn't manifest its-self through physical symptoms does not mean it doesn't affect your daily life. It can cripple you mentally; leave you bed-bound for weeks, months. A sinking feel that leaves you limping from one crisis to another.

As someone that suffers from depression I understand first hand how it can impact your life. There are days when I'm unable to leave my flat; days when the thought of venturing out into the big, bad world fills me with such terror I want to hide under my covers like a scared little boy for hours on end.  I, much like a lot of people that suffer from depression, seldom discus how I feel, mainly because I'm scared of the reaction I'll get from my friends and family. Sure, my nearest and dearest are willing to help and they do offer me support; but how do you tell someone that loves you that the first thought that stomped through your head this morning was one that related to suicide. How do you make people understand that, sometimes when you're feeling low, looking at knife paints a series of really bad, tempting and dangerous ideas. How does one form the words to describe that without being branded 'dramatic' or crazy? Some people will possibly see these 'issues' as little more than an unhealthy helping of self-pity. Let me assure you, it's not that at all. 

No one wants to feel like that; no-one wants to endure that constant paranoia and nagging voice of self-doubt. So why do some people believe that it's all in your head? Possibly the way its portrayed in the media. When you're famous any incident or health condition is obviously magnified by the media but its having a drip-down effect and those every day people that suffer from it are being mocked and met with disbelief. So why are we still getting these negative reactions? Is it born out of contempt for the famous? These conditions aren't exclusive to celebrities. Yet the public view seems to be that depression/bipolar is mainly a fashion trend adored and adopted by the famous: "You're nothing without a little bipolar, darling."  

Around 4,400 people commit suicide each year in England - that's one death every two hours. The self-harm statistics for the UK are also alarmingly high. In fact, we have the highest rates in Europe: 400 per 100,000 population. These facts and figures are standing in a crowded room screaming at the top of their lungs and are just ignored and brushed off. The internet has opened up a gallery of photos and stories about self-harm, depression and bipolar, yet they are still branded as a mere trend. Maybe a better view to have is this: When someone self-harms or talks about suicide maybe they reckon that it shows they're unhappy; lets people notice physical signs of their struggle. Yet what reaction are they met with? They're branded attention seekers. Well, did it ever occur to you that the reason they're seeking attention is because they're in pain?  

Depression, bipolar, self-harm... all of them have always been around; it's ironic that you see more people suffering from them yet the conditions seem less real. Publications and the media exploit high-profile suffers in order to sell copies and the public reaction tends to be mocking. So, what hope is there for unknown, average person who suffers the same affliction? If you think the ordinary sufferer is likely to be more respected and believed then you're being horribly naive.  

These are complex and hideous conditions, yet people always find away to belittle the mentally ill. Is it not about time we stopped rolling our eyes when someone, famous or not, mentions their mental health condition? As right now it seems to be that you're damned if you do talk about it and damned if you don't. 

 

Slactivism.

In a society that's hooked on  instant gratification its far easier to push a button than get on a picket line.
The never-ending stream of information that is flowing around the Internet, which is continuously being updated, does obviously have it's perks and plus sides. Social issues are highlighted and more people become aware of them. However, due to this accessibility of instant information,  the impact and importance of these issues has somewhat been lost.  The majority of people would rather click 'like' or 'RT' and believe that this an active form of protest. 

Scandals lure a crowd; the fewer items if clothing Justin Bieber is wearing, the more attention the  plebeian inhabitants of planet  Social Media  will bestow upon it. It's because of this that nugatory, mouth-eaten tales  involving celebrity heartthrobs take president over more pressing issues, such as human rights or gay marriage. 

And, on the odd occasions more pressing issues manage to tiptoe into the spotlight, it's merely a trend; thousands of people jumping onto the moral bandwagon not because of any desire for social progression but simply because its 'trending'. Which is truly a shame because for those who are activity involved, it often feels so hollow and more of a fad rather than love for a cause.

Surely if people are taking a interest in a cause, regardless of the reason, it's a step in the right direction? To an extent, yes. But how about the bombardment of poisonous 'Share if you hate cancer; ignore if you want your parents to die' posts/pictures that are currently littering Facebook? I'd hardly say that aids any cause other than to irk and pester people. Who came up with that horrid dribble anyway? The only thing cancerous here is those posts. 

I don't doubt for a minute a lot of people's  hearts are in the right places, but because news/information rockets from country-to-country in the blink of an eye, it becomes near impossible to pull the breaks on the false information that's lost amongst it.  

It's  reminiscent of a phrase my grandmother once said to me:  "A lie can travel around the world twice before the truth has even tied its shoe laces."  Or in terms of social media: the lies got fibre optic broadband, where as the truths limping around the globe on dial up.

Essentially my points are these: Not everything you read on the Internet is true and therefore have common sense the identify what's a lie and what's real before you share it. Secondly, make sure you believe in something before you leap on board with the rest of Twitter. Just because the Sierra filter he used on his twitter icon makes those baby blues sparkle like diamonds, it doesn't mean what he tweets is gospel.

Action without consideration can be just as harmful as inaction. Please don't just "like" or "RT" something; care about it.

 

The Kids Are Alright

Is it just me, or does there seem to be cauldron of repressed homophobia cunningly being disguised as ‘concern’ among some MPs?  Concern - 2013’s version of bigotry.

 I understand that social progression is concept lost on some people; that equal rights for gay men and women seem like a deluded fairytale and that’s all it should be – cause let’s face it, them gays will get bored of marriage soon enough; fickle creatures that they are.

Even though the gay marriage bill leisurely strolled through the House of Commons, being passed quite comfortably, there are still those that either voted against it or abstained. Personally I think abstaining is cowardly. I don’t believe in this ‘on the fence’ malarkey. You've had decades to form an opinion, pick a side.

Since its flamboyant conception, the gay marriage bill has sparked mixed reactions from a lot of people. The idea of a man marrying another man completely repaints this age-long image of what the union of marriage should be. Well, it’s 2013. It’s about time we moved away from that image and realized that the very foundations of normality are being reshaped and redefined, whether you’re on board or not.

It’s argued that if we allow homosexuals to marry, a lot of upset will be caused. Yes, it likely will provoke angry reactions from the more archaic-minded creatures of our society, as well as the prehistoric members of the Conservative party, but that argument can be slain quite simply: Do you not think that we, the  LGBT society, were a little ‘upset’ whilst we went through decades of prejudice and segregation? Society is progressing; so pack your bags, get on the train and enjoy the ride or take your dinosaur-behinds back the past where they belong.

Something else goes hand-in-hand with the gay marriage debate, and that’s the idea of gay couples raising children. There’s a fair amount of scaremongering emerging from the mouths of some politicians in regards to this. David Jones, the adorable Welsh Sectary/stand-up comedian, recently express his belief that gay couples “Cannot provide a warm and safe environment” in which to raise children.  That’s a fine move right there, David, playing that card.

I don’t understand why this fear is still used as an attempt to stop gay rights? The idea of gay parents is no longer a novelty. I’ll admit that it is a relatively new phenomenon, but its sweeping western society.  The standard family configuration has changed; same-sex households are common in America. Yet the mention of a child having gay parents still provokes social and political outrage. We are a slave to this idea of normality. Heterosexual families are composed of adopted children, step-children and the like – yet no one points the finger and cites the bible at them. Not to mention the countless cases of neglect and child abuse in hetro-household that seems to go overlooked. I’m sure that’s a more pressing matter.

Gay couples have more than earned the right to be both married and parents, so why is this prejudice still continuing? I’m tired of hearing same-sex parents being called ‘abominations’, ‘jokes’ or worse being described as a front for pedophilia. Why do these ugly stereotypes still continue to linger? Going by the statistics, if I were a child and was given the choice I’d opt for gay parents – not because I think they would provide any better an upbringing, but because their track record is a lot less colourful than the heterosexual parents. Will this change in time? Maybe; but if you don’t give us a chance you’ll never find out.  Every household goes through its ups and downs, hetro-and-homo alike. Marriage and family are about commitment, loyalty, respect and love. Just because the gender of the parents is the same, doesn't give them a handicapped.  

"I'm too old for this sh*t" - Pope Benedict

Following the recent announcement that Pope Benedict is resigning, theories are beginning to pile up as to why he has decided to hang up his mitre and hand over the keys to the Popemobile.

Well, this is truly a monumental event; one I suspect will likely pull a Harry Houdini in the Church’s history books. This resignation has left flocks of Catholics puzzled, whilst the rest of us, for we are a cynical bunch, have unleashed a catalogue of ‘reasons why.’

The official reasons cited by Benedict stated that his resignation was due to ill health and therefore his ability to his job was compromised. Although, and call me cynical, the whole thing smells slightly off to me. The church has been battered with allocations of childish abuse and corruption as well as a banquet of other blunders.  After cleaning up a constantly growing mess, is it any wonder Benny’s health has taken a turn for the worse? If I had to deal with as much indiscretions and accusations as his holiness does, I’d be booking an appointment with Dr. God and pleading for a sick note.

Perhaps this decision was some form of deal? Resign and ‘we’ shall grant you immunity and you will avoid prosecution; but prosecution from whom? There are multiple enemies frantically battering at the Vatican’s door; it really was only a matter of time before one of them broke through.

There is still a mass amount of irked woman that are sick of the Church’s chauvinism. The not-so-subtle shuffling of abusive priests around Germany, or as I like to call it ‘hide the peado.’  The child abuse victims in the USA whose complaints were somewhat overlooked.  Perhaps members of the church have grown tired of the restriction, rules and beliefs they’re obligated to live-by. “No condoms”, “Accidental pregnancy? Tough, keep your baby!” “And where were you on Sunday?”

Maybe it’s none of the above; perhaps Benedict’s age, or the Easter Bunny, has finally started gnawing away at his sanity. Wouldn't it be somewhat hilarious if his resignation was forced after he professed his belief in equality, fairies and Father Christmas? Whilst insisting that Tuesday would be a better Holy day.

Any the end of the day though this entire event is likely to have a horrid aftermath, one that’ll linger unwanted for months yet, out of respect, everyone will pretend to care – much like a bad tasting red wine that a relative gives you whilst visiting; you swirl it around your mouth, praying from the strength not to gag, and only swallow it out of politeness.

I wonder who will be next to fill the Vatican’s top job? Perhaps they should talk to their advertising and ask PR to conjure up a new campaign, turn this whole event into some elaborate reality TV show:  ‘The Vatican’s Next Top Pope.’ Contestants are given a colossal scandal to clean up, one that the public has seen time and time again, whilst battling the ticking hands of a clock that has God’s increasingly displeased  looking face plastered on it. Now that would help disperse the theories.

Whatever the outcome, I bet we shall still see the Pope-signal in the murky, cloudy sky next time a bleak set of events causes the Catholic Church trips over its own shoe laces.