What’s the easiest way to stamp out prejudice? Against homosexuals? Against other cultures/heritages? Against transexuals? To introduce children to anything unfamiliar while they are still young.
Nearly all children, due to the nature of a family, grow up experiencing a very narrow vision of what life is. Nobody (no one I know anyway) experiences a close relationship with someone of all races, all sexual orientations, all genders (including transexual for example). Very few children (even in early secondary school) are deeply (if at all) aware of feminism, the basics of the political system or racial oppression. ‘Gay’ is STILL a widely used insult in the playground.
It strikes me that the easiest way to prevent the type of attitude lots of children have towards homosexuality, is to teach them all about it. If children were taught about homosexual sex at the same time they are taught about heterosexual sex, not only would the subject become less of a joke (and frankly more boring) but the children who one day realise they are gay would feel far less alienated and confused. And they would have received the same vital sex education (how it works/STIs/etc) to be on the same knowledge platform as their straight peers. This is essential; many teens have no idea what diseases can even affect the LGBTQ+ community. From experience, online sources are pretty shitty. The same goes, obviously, for learning about the rest of the LGBTQ+ community – perhaps particularly important is educating children about what it means to be transgender.***
Another essential topic is sexism. And here, I don’t really mean historical sexism (not that this isn’t important). It’s crucial that children understand that sexism is a very real and current issue. The perils of cat-calling, the wage gap, page 3 and under-representation of women are just some of the many discussions children should be having in the school environment.
Likewise; racism. As with sexism, if you are a member of the more privileged group, it’s vital to listen to the experiences of those in varying groups who still suffer prejudice in 2015. Racism is far too serious a subject NOT to be introduced to young children. Awareness is the first step towards equality and the younger awareness of a need for equality/care/respect is introduced, the less arbitrary, dangerous prejudice is likely to continue. Discussions about the causes of racism, the history of racism and the current climate could really benefit the next generation.
Mental health problems have been on the rise for the last 10 years in Britain, often among younger people. Today, Jeremy Corbyn has created a shadow Minister for Mental Health position. In May’s general election, the Liberal Democrats pledged a £3.5 billion investment in mental health services. This is discussed, but often not early on enough. And the focus should be on learning how to support peers who become ill, what steps to take if you do become ill. Depression, anxiety and self harm are very prevalent issues in schools across the country – spreading awareness will surely help decrease the stigma that surrounds mental health. (read more here and here)
TBH, I’m shocked that this sort of thing isn’t already on the national curriculum and surprised the Liberal Democrats didn’t try to push for a change during their coalition period in government.
What would also be nice would be more political conversation, especially an introduction to Labour and Conservative policies, as well as the FPTP system (and possible alternatives), the House of Commons (and Lords), and political events of the day. It’s not enough to suddenly pressurise voting at an election or signing up to vote when 16. A basic understanding of where one is on the political scale ought to be enabled earlier on. An easy way to reduce political apathy amongst the young (which the govt claim to care about).
Varying family structures is something else that’s been totally ignored (unless you’ve had a visit from a single mum aggressively warning against being a single mum). It’s important to recognise and respect that everyone makes different choices for different reasons, despite intimidating cereal-box-family advertising everywhere.
If one has never encountered something, it’s natural to react less than positively. That part is not a choice (though obviously showing hostility is). For the most part, wariness is simply genetic (just think about all that one tribe crap from when we lived in trees – or Two Tribes the TV show tbf). The OBVIOUS solution therefore is education, knowledge being tolerance.
It seems this might be the perfect time to really push for a progressive PSHE curriculum. To me, it’s such a huge chance to ensure Britain’s liberal values keep up with the modern world once more. And although the Conservatives may not always be associated with liberalness or tolerance; researching Nicky Morgan (Minister for Education i.e. the new Gove) has left me relatively hopeful. With her new scheme, with the slightly nauseating title ‘Curriculum for Life’, she claims to believe, “PSHE should be much broader [than simply sex education]. I want more schools to put high-quality PSHE at the heart of their curriculum. It is an essential part of their responsibility to prepare young people for life in modern Britain…”
And if you are reluctant to believe that (Morgan seems to be over-focusing on the internet, in my opinion), whoever is elected Labour leader is going to want to make vote-winning promises. Let’s make sure decent, wide-coverage and ultimately tolerant PSHE is at the top of that list.
*** Another relevant question, WHY isn’t there more representation of the LGBT+ community in children’s TV?? So easy to implement and could overhaul societal attitudes
51.507351
-0.127758
Even in LDN, are LGBT couples as free as heterosexuals?
I read last month that London’s population has grown to the same size as it was in 1939 for the first time since the population shrank rapidly during and after World War II. It is now back at 8.6 million for the first time in those 76 intervening years.
It has also struck me a number of times in the last year or so, how common it is to see straight/heterosexual couples holding hands or kissing in public places like parks and on public transport, and yet very rare to see members of the LGBT community engaged in the same type of behaviour. This might just be my own very peculiar experience, but that doesn’t seem likely. In this city (London) which prides itself on being a modern, forward-thinking capital, it seems alarming to think that even possibly LGBT people are reluctant to behave naturally in public.
According to the Office for National Statistics, which gathers data for the government, 2.5% of the London population is LGBT, which is lower than the 10% figure often quoted in the media, but which is still a pretty large number of people. 215,000, to be precise. If members of the LGBT community do feel reluctant to be themselves in public then that seems very wrong, and I wonder why that is. Perhaps the issue is generational?
The generation currently in power did not grow up in our liberal environment. Most were born when homosexuality was illegal (it was only legalised – for over 21s – in 1969), thus they are likely to see relative equality (in terms of improved conditions). But, this hinders the equal treatment of every individual. To some, public displays of affection may be considered petty, however, if a group of people are afraid or unable to show their true selves in public then London (a tolerant and welcoming city, by reputation anyway) is certainly not setting the example it should.
It’s not enough for our generation to be empathetic and open-minded, we are not in charge. In fact, we are barely an influence. The Tories failed to attract over three quarters of the 43% of 18-24 year olds that turned out to vote. And they are the party in power. It seems the government have somewhat alienated themselves from the “Digital Generation” and are therefore often oblivious to the problems we face. UKIP scares and the right wing views of the growing elderly population, mean that the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have been fighting to improve their chances of power by prioritising these people, inevitably leading to the neglect of younger people and more socially “controversial” issues.
For the LGBT community, representation in politics is far and few. There are currently 6 LGBT MPs in the House of Commons. That’s out of 650 UK MPs. Less than 1%? Whilst the same-sex marriage bill passed in 2013 (well done for catching up America), there were 161 MPs who opposed it (over ¼ of all MPs), and 123 MPs refrained from voting (including new, v popular Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron), meaning 284 MPs did not vote in favour of same-sex marriage, a simple issue and basic right. This is worrying because these are published votes on written law, and in such circumstances it is telling of the everyday treatment and circumstances the LGBT community find themselves in. If just under half of MPs did not support the bill, then do they support equal rights?
There cannot be a bill for every inequality this minority suffers; the right to hold hands in public, or kiss on the tube. Whilst same-sex marriage is a good step forward, the division in the vote shows there are still many members of society stepping back, particularly due to the public example set by politicians, over ¼ of people representing Britons have validated opposing same-sex marriage, in turn, validating inequality.
I think that in order to improve these problems people in power need to assert the fact that mistreatment of minorities is unacceptable, and look at day-to-day inequalities, making changes to their manifestos. The government needs to take a look at things outside of their comfort zone (not only the treatment of the LGBT community). Also, people need to stop being asshats. Seriously, it doesn’t matter how old or young you are, show some respect – age, gender, sexuality or anything else doesn’t change that person from being an intelligent being with important views and beliefs. Anyway, times have changed since our leaders were teenagers, they need to act more in the interests of our generation. It’s time for people to not be so naive and let everybody walk in the sun, as Mae West says: “In olden days, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, now heaven knows anything goes.” And so it should.
By Poppy, 14
51.507351
-0.127758
In 1992, with quintessential neoliberal arrogance and pomposity, Francis Fukuyama declared the ‘End of History’, proclaiming the final victory of liberalism over every single other ideology ever.
On the 26th January this year, Syriza stormed to power, proving Fukuyama was talking out of his arse. Proving that Neoliberalism does not yet stand unchallenged. In taking a bold stance against Troika-imposed austerity, Alexis Tsipras has given the Greek people a second chance at prosperity, but his victory has profound implications far beyond the borders of his homeland. The Spanish left-wing party Podemos was founded only last year, but as I write is topping the opinion polls in the run-up to this year’s general election. And this is just the beginning.
What we are witnessing is the expression of mass disillusionment at the failings of a neoliberal elite who have dominated European politics for decades, to the detriment of the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies. The gradualism of the centre-left will no longer suffice – across Europe, we are demanding radical change, and at long last we are seeing it. The process has begun in those nations most damaged by EU austerity measures, but will surely spread as inequality continues to skyrocket. We have been sold a lie: that the wealth of the super-rich will trickle down; that if left alone the market will provide for us all. The financial crisis of 2008 exposed the cracks in this façade, and they have been growing wider ever since. The number of food banks across the UK has grown exponentially, battling to feed an underclass on the brink of collapse. All the while, the 1% get richer.
Syriza will face incredible hardship in the months to come, and will as likely as not be forced into concessions at the negotiating table that will make implementing their vision impossible. Faced with such a dire economic situation, success seems unlikely, but my argument does not hinge on the success of one party.
Neoliberalism has failed to provide security and contentment for the masses; the inevitable result of an ideology which incentivises greed and selfishness. It’s time to find an alternative. It’s time to start prioritising the collective. It’s time for revolution.
Jules Norman Reebok Jackson, 18
52.647466
0.687481
Scuffle 