It's amazing the kind of things you see on Live at the Apollo... one of them was a comedic debate on gender politics regarding Maggie Thatcher and Madonna
The point raised by the comedian (whose name I cannot recall), was that Madonna showed that women could be sexy into their 40s and 50s, yet Margaret Thatcher climbed to the top of the most male dominated profession 'without ever having to shake her ass', as he put it.
Although it was a bit of comedic banter, I remember watching and thinking that there was a real debate behind this. From a feminist point of view, I would definitely have to agree that Margaret Thatcher is the most rational role model, and for exactly the reason he said. Thatcher was the longest serving Prime Minister in the UK in the 20th Century, and not once did she have to objectify herself and the rest of the female population to do so. This, though some may disagree, is exactly what Madonna has done. In making herself a mere object of sexual desire for men, she gave the same image to all women, condemning them if they refused to comply with her new image and change themselves.
Madonna openly encouraged all of this. Whatever happened to natural beauty, and each person being both unique and beautiful? She released a book, entitled Sex, which consisted completely of sexually explicit photos of her i.e. pornography, and alongside it released an album called Erotica. How is it that women actually respect her for all of this? It wasn't until I actually sat down and reflected upon this debate that I realised Madonna is not role model material.
Whilst it is important to both men and women to retain good and healthy lifestyles no matter what age, I think that Madonna's sexual provocation has denegrated both men and women. It suggests that all men desire is sex, and that all women care about is their appearances. What a shallow world we live in if this is the case, though it isn't!
This post is probably a tad biased - I love Madonna's music and films, I won't deny it. But the mistake of idolising her life is one which needs to be rectified. I don't necessarily like Margaret Thatcher, in fact, she made many more people angry than Madonna ever did, but that is to be expected when you're Prime Minister.
Margaret Thatcher run the country, overcame a 'winter of discontent', and no matter what your political views are, I believe that she deserves the utmost respect as a role model to young girls. As a child she lived in a flat in Lincolnshire, and her father owned 2 grocery shops. She wasn't fed with a silver spoon, and she certainly had to work for the position she was given. It is my belief that she fully deserved her time as Prime Minister, and that she is the true role model of the 80s and 90s, not Madonna.
Please let me know what you think in the comments!
Friday 4 January 2013
Wednesday 14 November 2012
Police and Crime Commissioner Elections
As it stands at the moment, 15 people make the big decisions on Policing in your area... Are the new reforms including a PCC really more democratic?
Well, my simple answer is: yes.
My much more developed and insightful answer is:
There is a large debate as to whether or not the new Policing structure will be democratic or not, due to the fact that the amount of power held by these 15 individuals will, as of tomorrow, be in the hands of one. The difference? This one person will be elected by the public tomorrow, whereas the 15 who are in charge today were not.
So, if tomorrow's system is supposedly less democratic, why are we changing the way things are run? In the current economic climate, cuts are being made to every sector, including the police force. This election ensures that with the cuts that are made to the police force, the PCC will have the ability to represent your views and possibly prevent cuts from being made to crucial areas in your county.
Here in Kent, we have five PCC candidates, and my, oh my, did I take great pleasure in disproving the policies of two out of five (the truth is I haven't had time to look at the other three in enough detail). My advice to you, Mr/Ms Voter, is that you under no circumstances should vote by your political party.
Politics and law enforcement should be no more interlinked than they already are. Politicians make the law, the police enforce it. It perplexes me, and a great many other people I know, as to why political parties now have an influence on which crimes are focused on in their areas. Surely, this will lead to even more corruption! I can imagine it now! Conservative candidates will crack down on working class crime and crimes affecting businesses, but will totally ignore corporate and 'white-collar' (middle class) crime. Labour candidates will do the opposite and concentrate on those people we hear of so often these days committing tax evasion and fraud on massive scales etc.
So, once again, please do NOT vote by your political party. Take 5 minutes out of your evening, or tomorrow morning to have a look at the candidates and see which best suits you.
PCC candidates can be found here according to which area of the UK you live in - http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/
I have one final request... and that is whatever you do, whoever you vote for, please just make sure you do!
Thanks
Sarah :)
Well, my simple answer is: yes.
My much more developed and insightful answer is:
There is a large debate as to whether or not the new Policing structure will be democratic or not, due to the fact that the amount of power held by these 15 individuals will, as of tomorrow, be in the hands of one. The difference? This one person will be elected by the public tomorrow, whereas the 15 who are in charge today were not.
So, if tomorrow's system is supposedly less democratic, why are we changing the way things are run? In the current economic climate, cuts are being made to every sector, including the police force. This election ensures that with the cuts that are made to the police force, the PCC will have the ability to represent your views and possibly prevent cuts from being made to crucial areas in your county.
Here in Kent, we have five PCC candidates, and my, oh my, did I take great pleasure in disproving the policies of two out of five (the truth is I haven't had time to look at the other three in enough detail). My advice to you, Mr/Ms Voter, is that you under no circumstances should vote by your political party.
Politics and law enforcement should be no more interlinked than they already are. Politicians make the law, the police enforce it. It perplexes me, and a great many other people I know, as to why political parties now have an influence on which crimes are focused on in their areas. Surely, this will lead to even more corruption! I can imagine it now! Conservative candidates will crack down on working class crime and crimes affecting businesses, but will totally ignore corporate and 'white-collar' (middle class) crime. Labour candidates will do the opposite and concentrate on those people we hear of so often these days committing tax evasion and fraud on massive scales etc.
So, once again, please do NOT vote by your political party. Take 5 minutes out of your evening, or tomorrow morning to have a look at the candidates and see which best suits you.
PCC candidates can be found here according to which area of the UK you live in - http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/
I have one final request... and that is whatever you do, whoever you vote for, please just make sure you do!
Thanks
Sarah :)
Saturday 10 November 2012
How do the media decide what is newsworthy or not?
I'm sure many will agree that amongst the news of accused paedophile Jimmy Savile that there may be many news items left unspoken of... why?
The simple truth of the matter is that if it doesn't involve celebrities or vulnerable groups, it's not worth putting in the paper. So can we ever really trust what we read from day to day? The answer is no.
The Jimmy Savile case has been plaguing the front pages of newspapers for weeks on end, yet to what avail? Is it really because there are no other stories to fill up our front pages? Of course not, it's simply the most shocking due to its content. Minor stories don't get much coverage, and one of the views I'd like to express is that they should, if not for the 'shock factor' then at least to protect the eyes of some particularly younger readers of papers or viewers of TV news.
Let's take an ordinary occurrence, such as breakfast, and see how we can make it into a news story. If it were me, eating an ordinary bowl of cornflakes for breakfast - not particularly newsworthy. Yet, if the Prime Minister ate a bowl of cornflakes but had personally murdered 6 cows to get the milk for it (and, of course, this is all hypothetical...the probability of David Cameron murdering cows is not something I would like to place any bets on either way!), it would instantly become a news story and although maybe not front page worthy, it would definitely have its place.
It shocks me that we as a country are exposing young children to such things, whether it be the PM murdering cows to get milk for breakfast or the numerous horrific allegations against Jimmy Savile that appears on the front page of a newspaper. All a child has to do is walk into a shop with their parents and attempt to look at a kid's magazine, yet right next door is a story on paedophilia.
Children are inquisitive creatures and also impressionable. On a moral ground, is this the sort of impression which our society should be immortalising in their memories?
The simple truth of the matter is that if it doesn't involve celebrities or vulnerable groups, it's not worth putting in the paper. So can we ever really trust what we read from day to day? The answer is no.
The Jimmy Savile case has been plaguing the front pages of newspapers for weeks on end, yet to what avail? Is it really because there are no other stories to fill up our front pages? Of course not, it's simply the most shocking due to its content. Minor stories don't get much coverage, and one of the views I'd like to express is that they should, if not for the 'shock factor' then at least to protect the eyes of some particularly younger readers of papers or viewers of TV news.
Let's take an ordinary occurrence, such as breakfast, and see how we can make it into a news story. If it were me, eating an ordinary bowl of cornflakes for breakfast - not particularly newsworthy. Yet, if the Prime Minister ate a bowl of cornflakes but had personally murdered 6 cows to get the milk for it (and, of course, this is all hypothetical...the probability of David Cameron murdering cows is not something I would like to place any bets on either way!), it would instantly become a news story and although maybe not front page worthy, it would definitely have its place.
It shocks me that we as a country are exposing young children to such things, whether it be the PM murdering cows to get milk for breakfast or the numerous horrific allegations against Jimmy Savile that appears on the front page of a newspaper. All a child has to do is walk into a shop with their parents and attempt to look at a kid's magazine, yet right next door is a story on paedophilia.
Children are inquisitive creatures and also impressionable. On a moral ground, is this the sort of impression which our society should be immortalising in their memories?
Saturday 29 September 2012
The Homeless Register...
This isn't exactly a current affair, but it's of equal importance and I would like to share my disgust
My knowledge of the timescale of this issue is, I admit, sketchy, but I do not that it has been an inexplicable problem since at least September/October 2011.
Shepway's Homeless Register serves to offer Council Housing free of charge to those that they believe are entitled to it. The system works on a simple points basis, whereby the person in need of housing is allocated a given number of points according to their situation. I believe (but I am not certain) that the minimum number of points one can be allocated is 25, and the maximum 250.
Now, it baffles me how they can possibly decide which homeless person needs housing more urgently than another. Well, I do happen to know that if you are a teen mother, your chances go up tenfold (that's an exaggeration, I do not know how much they go up, but it is by a LOT). If you are either mentally or physically disabled, your chances are also increased. However, to be allocated 250 points, you must be a combination of both of these things.
Let's create a scenario here - and I am not making any stereotypical judgment on teenage parents and/or the handicapped - of two young girls, both aged 16 who are homeless due to whatever reason. One of these 16 year old girls has acted promiscuously from the age of 13 (and this is NOT unbelievable) landing her with a 9 month old baby, and no school qualifications. She's also an underage smoker and is addicted to cannabis, giving her some mental instabilities. The other is still at school, is hoping to complete A-Levels and go off to University to hopefully make something of herself one day and be successful. Now on this points allocation system, the 16 year old at school gets a minimum of 25 points, whereas the other gets the maximum of 250.
This is, quite clearly, a highly unjust system. I am not arguing that the 16 year old mother should not receive housing; I am arguing that these two girls are one and the same. They both have promising future prospects. It may not seem so, but if the first 16 year old girl was offered financial and emotional support for her baby, and a rehabilitation/counselling service for her drug addiction, assuming she took both willingly, she would then be in the same position as the second girl, and they would then both be in healthy competition to find a job/continue studying.
However, this is NOT the kind of competition which is created. The competition which this apparently effective system encourages has much more devastating effects. The second 16 year old girl, on realising that without being either pregnant or disabled, or even both, she will be forced to sleep on the roadside, enters into a much more sadistic competition. She immediately begins to practise unsafe sex in the hope that she will be landed pregnant in order to become entitled to a place to live, befriends unsafe and abusive people in order to have free access to drugs, and then becomes hooked so that she can bear the pain of her life as it is, opposed to as it was.
Now, I wonder, how can governments and councils justify this?
It's simple.
They claim to be helping those who need it most, when in fact, they are not being helped. Help is not offering these troubled youngsters places to live and then leaving them to wreak even more havoc onto themselves. Help is offering them comfort and stability, in whatever form they need. For some, like the second girl I described, this may only be a place to live, but for others, i.e. the first girl, much more is needed to ensure their safety and security.
This is why I totally disagree with the way things are worked out both in the homeless register, and in the welfare system, and in lesser institutions controlled by the governments and councils. Individuals should be treated as individuals... Not statistical data.
I would love to hear more thoughts on this, probably, rather controversial issue. Please comment!
Thanks
My knowledge of the timescale of this issue is, I admit, sketchy, but I do not that it has been an inexplicable problem since at least September/October 2011.
Shepway's Homeless Register serves to offer Council Housing free of charge to those that they believe are entitled to it. The system works on a simple points basis, whereby the person in need of housing is allocated a given number of points according to their situation. I believe (but I am not certain) that the minimum number of points one can be allocated is 25, and the maximum 250.
Now, it baffles me how they can possibly decide which homeless person needs housing more urgently than another. Well, I do happen to know that if you are a teen mother, your chances go up tenfold (that's an exaggeration, I do not know how much they go up, but it is by a LOT). If you are either mentally or physically disabled, your chances are also increased. However, to be allocated 250 points, you must be a combination of both of these things.
Let's create a scenario here - and I am not making any stereotypical judgment on teenage parents and/or the handicapped - of two young girls, both aged 16 who are homeless due to whatever reason. One of these 16 year old girls has acted promiscuously from the age of 13 (and this is NOT unbelievable) landing her with a 9 month old baby, and no school qualifications. She's also an underage smoker and is addicted to cannabis, giving her some mental instabilities. The other is still at school, is hoping to complete A-Levels and go off to University to hopefully make something of herself one day and be successful. Now on this points allocation system, the 16 year old at school gets a minimum of 25 points, whereas the other gets the maximum of 250.
This is, quite clearly, a highly unjust system. I am not arguing that the 16 year old mother should not receive housing; I am arguing that these two girls are one and the same. They both have promising future prospects. It may not seem so, but if the first 16 year old girl was offered financial and emotional support for her baby, and a rehabilitation/counselling service for her drug addiction, assuming she took both willingly, she would then be in the same position as the second girl, and they would then both be in healthy competition to find a job/continue studying.
However, this is NOT the kind of competition which is created. The competition which this apparently effective system encourages has much more devastating effects. The second 16 year old girl, on realising that without being either pregnant or disabled, or even both, she will be forced to sleep on the roadside, enters into a much more sadistic competition. She immediately begins to practise unsafe sex in the hope that she will be landed pregnant in order to become entitled to a place to live, befriends unsafe and abusive people in order to have free access to drugs, and then becomes hooked so that she can bear the pain of her life as it is, opposed to as it was.
Now, I wonder, how can governments and councils justify this?
It's simple.
They claim to be helping those who need it most, when in fact, they are not being helped. Help is not offering these troubled youngsters places to live and then leaving them to wreak even more havoc onto themselves. Help is offering them comfort and stability, in whatever form they need. For some, like the second girl I described, this may only be a place to live, but for others, i.e. the first girl, much more is needed to ensure their safety and security.
This is why I totally disagree with the way things are worked out both in the homeless register, and in the welfare system, and in lesser institutions controlled by the governments and councils. Individuals should be treated as individuals... Not statistical data.
I would love to hear more thoughts on this, probably, rather controversial issue. Please comment!
Thanks
Friday 28 September 2012
Nepalese Plane Crash...
I'd just like to pay my respects, and open a small (but not searching) debate on the safety of plane travel
I've heard some devastating news, as I'm sure we all have in the past couple of days. Tragically, a plane crashed in Northern Nepal taking off from Kathmandu to Lukla, leaving 19 people dead.
Among the 19 dead, there are 7 named British citizens, and I believe that the identities of the other victims are still unknown. This is incredibly saddening to have read about, and so I would like to pay my respects to the families of those involved in the crash, as even those who lived will now have to suffer what I'm sure will be severe mental trauma.
It seems to me that these sorts of plane incidents occur all too often. Surely by now, with today's rapidly advancing technology, plane faults should be easily detected and fixed before the lives of anyone are endangered? I find it astonishing that even with these technological advancements that these traumatising events still occur as often as they do.
Please feel free to read about the crash here on the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19755010 - and once again I feel very deeply sympathetic of the poor families of those killed, as well as those suffering who survived.
Thanks for reading, I know it's not a happy topic, hopefully I'll be updating with something much less tragic soon.
I've heard some devastating news, as I'm sure we all have in the past couple of days. Tragically, a plane crashed in Northern Nepal taking off from Kathmandu to Lukla, leaving 19 people dead.
Among the 19 dead, there are 7 named British citizens, and I believe that the identities of the other victims are still unknown. This is incredibly saddening to have read about, and so I would like to pay my respects to the families of those involved in the crash, as even those who lived will now have to suffer what I'm sure will be severe mental trauma.
It seems to me that these sorts of plane incidents occur all too often. Surely by now, with today's rapidly advancing technology, plane faults should be easily detected and fixed before the lives of anyone are endangered? I find it astonishing that even with these technological advancements that these traumatising events still occur as often as they do.
Please feel free to read about the crash here on the BBC website - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19755010 - and once again I feel very deeply sympathetic of the poor families of those killed, as well as those suffering who survived.
Thanks for reading, I know it's not a happy topic, hopefully I'll be updating with something much less tragic soon.
Thursday 27 September 2012
The Handmaid's Tale...
Heck, it's probably pretty bad to write two posts in one day, but I read Paulio's blog (I'll post the link at the end) and got all riled up about feminism, so I thought I'd discuss it in relation to a certain piece of literature - The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood)
For those of you who haven't read this fantastically unnerving dystopian novel (you must!), it deals with a social reform in order to transport society back to traditional values contained in the Bible. The state of Gilead is suffering from a baby shortage due to increasing numbers of abortions and women wanting careers and leaving it too late to have children, in addition to many babies being stillborn or with fatal deformities - not very pretty, I know! To solve the problem, a system is introduced whereby Handmaids are assigned to men to bear them children. It all gets a bit complicated from here...
The Bible states that if a woman cannot bear her husband a child, her husband should lay with his wife's maid with his wife looking on. Now, this may seem a bit creepy - it sure does to me - but one feminist interpretation of this is that this is a man's utopia. A utopia for one person/group of people has become a dystopia for many others. Of course, this is an incredibly sexist viewpoint, and the majority of feminists would halt at the statement that this shows the traditional value that infertility was the fault of women, and go no further. This alone fascinates me! The distinction between feminists always has fascinated me. It's almost like ethnic minority groups fighting against racism, but fighting amongst each other. The common cause unites, but in each other's eyes, somebody is always wrong. WHAT A HUGE CONTRADICTION!!!
The Handmaid's Tale is a particularly riveting text with which to look at this contradiction, due to it's anti-female and pro-biblical practices. In fact, I believe it to be the embodiment of the BNP sometimes in the revert to tradition, which would ultimately put everyone back in their rightful places i.e. women in the kitchen or the bedroom, never venturing outside unless it's to do domestic tasks and you're a lowlife Handmaid or wife of a peasant. Respectable women remain indoors and knit or tend gardens. Marthas are assigned to take care of all housework. Handmaids are assigned for procreation. Men are executed for gender treachery! Doctors for, well, being doctors! Religious groups persecuted!
It really is an amazing read. PLEASE READ THIS BOOK I LOVE IT SO MUCH!!!
But the best part about all of these ridiculous religious fundamentalist ideas is that, whist these women are each assigned their duties, the men still have clubs for prostitution. As if they weren't getting enough already! For a feminist, this is the literal definition of patriarchal oppression and subordination. If I ever become a world-renowned feminist, I will use this literary example in all of my works.
It is astonishing how many historical parallels can be drawn from The Handmaid's Tale! Atwood's intelligence and cunning continues...
There are NO practices mentioned in this novel, that didn't happen at one time in history, and some which maybe are even relevant now. Feminists (and I mean all of them, not just the radical ones), would take the liberty to argue that the anti-porn protests and prostitution clubs are relevant, everyday examples of women's degradation. Yet, whereas in this society the majority of women involved in pornographic filming at least, are using their sexuality in a way which they see fit (though I DEFINITELY DO NOT agree with it), the women of Gilead are being forced by patriarchy to commit adultery, and are debased by men. In Gilead, there is not a single woman who would willingly submit to this kind of prostitution.
Just think... though some of us may not agree with the way women treat themselves and flaunt their sexuality now, how much worse would it be, if they had no power? Not even that of their own bodies?
Food for thought!
Thanks for reading - this stuff really lets me get my teeth into it!!! Here's the link to Paulio's own rant about feminist ideology - http://paulio-news.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/can-men-write-and-engage-with-feminism.html
For those of you who haven't read this fantastically unnerving dystopian novel (you must!), it deals with a social reform in order to transport society back to traditional values contained in the Bible. The state of Gilead is suffering from a baby shortage due to increasing numbers of abortions and women wanting careers and leaving it too late to have children, in addition to many babies being stillborn or with fatal deformities - not very pretty, I know! To solve the problem, a system is introduced whereby Handmaids are assigned to men to bear them children. It all gets a bit complicated from here...
The Bible states that if a woman cannot bear her husband a child, her husband should lay with his wife's maid with his wife looking on. Now, this may seem a bit creepy - it sure does to me - but one feminist interpretation of this is that this is a man's utopia. A utopia for one person/group of people has become a dystopia for many others. Of course, this is an incredibly sexist viewpoint, and the majority of feminists would halt at the statement that this shows the traditional value that infertility was the fault of women, and go no further. This alone fascinates me! The distinction between feminists always has fascinated me. It's almost like ethnic minority groups fighting against racism, but fighting amongst each other. The common cause unites, but in each other's eyes, somebody is always wrong. WHAT A HUGE CONTRADICTION!!!
The Handmaid's Tale is a particularly riveting text with which to look at this contradiction, due to it's anti-female and pro-biblical practices. In fact, I believe it to be the embodiment of the BNP sometimes in the revert to tradition, which would ultimately put everyone back in their rightful places i.e. women in the kitchen or the bedroom, never venturing outside unless it's to do domestic tasks and you're a lowlife Handmaid or wife of a peasant. Respectable women remain indoors and knit or tend gardens. Marthas are assigned to take care of all housework. Handmaids are assigned for procreation. Men are executed for gender treachery! Doctors for, well, being doctors! Religious groups persecuted!
It really is an amazing read. PLEASE READ THIS BOOK I LOVE IT SO MUCH!!!
But the best part about all of these ridiculous religious fundamentalist ideas is that, whist these women are each assigned their duties, the men still have clubs for prostitution. As if they weren't getting enough already! For a feminist, this is the literal definition of patriarchal oppression and subordination. If I ever become a world-renowned feminist, I will use this literary example in all of my works.
It is astonishing how many historical parallels can be drawn from The Handmaid's Tale! Atwood's intelligence and cunning continues...
There are NO practices mentioned in this novel, that didn't happen at one time in history, and some which maybe are even relevant now. Feminists (and I mean all of them, not just the radical ones), would take the liberty to argue that the anti-porn protests and prostitution clubs are relevant, everyday examples of women's degradation. Yet, whereas in this society the majority of women involved in pornographic filming at least, are using their sexuality in a way which they see fit (though I DEFINITELY DO NOT agree with it), the women of Gilead are being forced by patriarchy to commit adultery, and are debased by men. In Gilead, there is not a single woman who would willingly submit to this kind of prostitution.
Just think... though some of us may not agree with the way women treat themselves and flaunt their sexuality now, how much worse would it be, if they had no power? Not even that of their own bodies?
Food for thought!
Thanks for reading - this stuff really lets me get my teeth into it!!! Here's the link to Paulio's own rant about feminist ideology - http://paulio-news.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/can-men-write-and-engage-with-feminism.html
Mininum age for Social Networking...
This has been an ongoing debate since Facebook first came about, but what do you think?
Facebook, as well as a number of other social networking sites, sets a minimum age restriction, claiming that nobody under the age of 13 will be able to use the site. Similar restrictions have been set on others, but how safe are the children using these sites, and how old are they in actuality?
The EU Kids Online II Survey has revealed some shocking statistics to do with minimum age restrictions, in particular for the use of Facebook. It is estimated that 1 in 5 9-12 year olds have a Facebook account which they use regularly. I bet you're thinking: 'So what? It's up to the parents!'. Well I agree, to an extent.
I also agree that this sort of thing should be monitored. Obviously it's a very difficult thing to police; practically impossible in fact! But schools and/or parents should be able to expose these younger children to social networking authorities, as I (along with many others) believe that mass communication sites like these really aren't safe places for young children.
But, should this be someone else's responsibility entirely? Are not the government responsible for children's safety and welfare via their own institutions such as social services etc. stated in the Data Protection Act? Is it then their problem, and are parents and schools thus liberated from safeguarding children's actions on the internet? (I AM merely playing Devil's advocate here, but if someone does believe this and has ready justification I'd be fascinated to get into a debate with YOU!)
Internet-based paedophiles - pretending to be children/teenagers - are on the up. Only last year was a network of paedophiles found and persecuted!
Cyber-bullying - a major form of bullying in this day and age - has increased tremendously.
Inappropriate content - swearing and other offensive language - is open to view by small children, even those as young as 4!!!
These are just 2 things that children are exposed to on the internet, should we let it continue?
More statistics on this whole debate can be found here - http://www.digitalme.co.uk/tag/facebook-age-debate/ - I do not own the site or anything on it, but I found it incredibly interesting to read through :)
I'd love to hear some thoughts on this, even if they are from my only follower at the moment!!! :P (hopefully I'll have some more soon, eh?)
Thanks for reading, I know this is the first post in a while - I do apologise!
Sarah
Facebook, as well as a number of other social networking sites, sets a minimum age restriction, claiming that nobody under the age of 13 will be able to use the site. Similar restrictions have been set on others, but how safe are the children using these sites, and how old are they in actuality?
The EU Kids Online II Survey has revealed some shocking statistics to do with minimum age restrictions, in particular for the use of Facebook. It is estimated that 1 in 5 9-12 year olds have a Facebook account which they use regularly. I bet you're thinking: 'So what? It's up to the parents!'. Well I agree, to an extent.
I also agree that this sort of thing should be monitored. Obviously it's a very difficult thing to police; practically impossible in fact! But schools and/or parents should be able to expose these younger children to social networking authorities, as I (along with many others) believe that mass communication sites like these really aren't safe places for young children.
But, should this be someone else's responsibility entirely? Are not the government responsible for children's safety and welfare via their own institutions such as social services etc. stated in the Data Protection Act? Is it then their problem, and are parents and schools thus liberated from safeguarding children's actions on the internet? (I AM merely playing Devil's advocate here, but if someone does believe this and has ready justification I'd be fascinated to get into a debate with YOU!)
Internet-based paedophiles - pretending to be children/teenagers - are on the up. Only last year was a network of paedophiles found and persecuted!
Cyber-bullying - a major form of bullying in this day and age - has increased tremendously.
Inappropriate content - swearing and other offensive language - is open to view by small children, even those as young as 4!!!
These are just 2 things that children are exposed to on the internet, should we let it continue?
More statistics on this whole debate can be found here - http://www.digitalme.co.uk/tag/facebook-age-debate/ - I do not own the site or anything on it, but I found it incredibly interesting to read through :)
I'd love to hear some thoughts on this, even if they are from my only follower at the moment!!! :P (hopefully I'll have some more soon, eh?)
Thanks for reading, I know this is the first post in a while - I do apologise!
Sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)