SEARCH RESULTS

After experiencing being the only male taking ‘understanding gender in the contemporary world’, a gender studies module at the University of Edinburgh, Antony Haslam makes the case that “gender issues must be the concern of everyone: men; women; and non-binary alike. ” Art caption: "What a wonderfully complex thing! this simple seeming unity- the self! (...) some queer long-forgotten sensation of vein and muscle, of a feeling of vast hopeless effort, the effort of a man near drowning in darkness." H. G. Wells, The Sleeper Awakes (p.21) Enrolling in Understanding Gender in the Contemporary World, an undergraduate Gender Studies module at the University of Edinburgh, as a bloke, and discovering the abysmal turnout by men, ought not to have been a surprise to me. Although data on gender identity isn’t recorded on enrolment, there is a general trend that more women than men tend to take these types of courses. Despite the best efforts of course convenors, there is a wider perception that Gender Studies (and feminism) equals ‘women’. So, when I first looked at my Gender Studies tutorial group (digitally, of course- HybridTeaching™) and realised that I, a man, was the anomaly; I felt compelled to make the case that gender issues must be the concern of everyone: men; women; and non-binary alike. We need to start conversations in which guys aside their masculinity; this toxic mindset is a key reason so many of us are frightened (yes, frightened) to openly embrace feminism and gender issues. There is, however, undeniably a challenge presented. Being outnumbered on a gender-imbalanced course does make you second guess the validity of your opinion. Do I really have the same right to comment on gender inequality as the women and the non-binary individuals on the course? I don’t know if I can answer this correctly, and I can’t speak on behalf of my peers, however, it has certainly been my experience that what I’ve had to say has been welcomed. Also, I wish to be clear that I am not painting myself as oppressed by this; I am merely presenting what I see as the potential challenges in getting more men engaging with Gender Studies. Studying gender and recognising the privileges afforded by my maleness doesn’t make me (or you) a militant, ‘man-hating’ feminist. Rather, it has allowed me to recognise that gender issues affect men, too. I want to make the case that we need more of us engaging with these issues, to help us to break down the stereotype that the concealment of emotions is part and parcel of being a ‘man’. It is this, our attempt to be ‘men’, that translates into the tragedy of male suicide in the UK. Therefore, the first question we must ask is: “Why should men be concerned with learning about gender inequality?” Well, in life, we needn’t be directly affected by an oppressive force to feel a deep sense of anger or discomfort at the injustice. For example, as a white student living in Edinburgh, I am not directly affected by violence at the hands of the Nigerian Special Anti-Robbery Squad. Yet, I still feel a gross sense of injustice that not a single SARS officer has been prosecuted for human rights violations, torture or extra-judicial execution, despite countless documented incidences (1). This idea that we can (and should) support social causes, even if we aren’t explicitly affected, is no different with gender issues. As a man, I would have continued to happily earn my salary after Equal Pay Day (which, last year, happened to fall on November 14th). Equal Pay Day represents the point when women effectively stop earning their salaries, while their male colleagues continue to do so, because of the wage gap. Despite not personally suffering in the situation, I still feel it is a gross injustice that women spent the last 48 days of last year essentially working for free. Despite progressive legislation, the gender pay gap and ‘motherhood penalty’ (the reality that women’s careers suffer for having and raising a child) are real inequalities that still exist. These are inequalities that everyone should be opposed to, regardless of how you identify. A University of Bristol study found that fewer than a third of women return to full time employment (or their self-employed status) after having a baby, compared to over 90% of men (2). Being opposed to such inequalities does make you a feminist, and this really shouldn’t be something that scares men. Despite the images that the media love to portray of feminists as aggressive, feminism isn’t anti-men. Realising that the title ‘feminist’ isn’t something to fear and isn’t something that undermines your masculinity should represent an empowering first step towards engaging with gender issues and overcoming our toxic tendencies.. Having more men embrace feminism and engage with gender issues isn’t solely about increasing male enrolment in Gender Studies at university. It could simply mean more men engaging with relevant literature and discussing feminism and gender issues more readily. These changes provide a great starting point for more men to realise that gender issues affect us, too. Masculinities are an important part of Gender Studies and a greater understanding of how they work would be hugely beneficial for all men. The key issue with masculinity, for many guys, is the toxic idea that real men don’t cry; we ‘tough it out’. We keep a brave face on the exterior, trying our utmost to project the image that we don’t suffer with mental struggles. But we do. Everyone does. It is this perception, that the ‘masculine ideal’ is a man who doesn’t display his emotions, which is extremely harmful. Men often won’t have an open and frank conversation about how they really feel with their friends, for fear that this public display of emotion may undermine their masculinity and result in castigation by the Gods of ‘lad culture’. It is this suppressing of natural emotions which is so detrimental to our mental health. I therefore see conforming to this toxic ideal as a key cause of the tragic reality that men in the UK are three times more likely to take their own lives than women (3). Critically engaging with gender issues will help men to challenge the status quo of masculinity and explore why this desire to feel strong, in control and ‘manly’ has had precisely the opposite effect; crippling one in every eight men with mental health problems and making suicide the leading cause of death for men under fifty in the UK (4). So, what now? I want to see more men picking up feminist literature. I want you to stop fearing what other guys might think of you as you read Feminism is for Everybody (5) on the train. As I’ve already argued, feminism isn’t exclusionary of men and reading feminist authors’ work isn’t emasculating. Fact. We need more men to realise that our gender doesn’t have to mean abstaining from compassion, and it certainly doesn’t mean we have to conceal our emotions and tears in public. My personal call is to see more young men signing up for gender modules. It is my hope that this will help us all to break the stigma around men’s mental health. So, I leave you with the simple message: read something feminist and make sure to look after your own and others’ mental health. With this in mind, the following may be of use for anyone who wishes to further engage with some of the topics I’ve discussed: GenderED General information on GenderED (the cross-university hub for gender and sexualities studies at the University of Edinburgh): http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/gendered Searchable database of gender & sexuality courses at the University: http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/gendered/courses Mental Health Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM). A leading stand against suicide and a great general resource: https://www.thecalmzone.net/ More information regarding the link between masculinity performance and male mental health issues: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/m/men-and-mental-health Feminism Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s TED Talk ‘We Should All Be Feminists’- a thought provoking talk covering many of the same ideas that I have suggested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc A simple myth-busting guide to feminism that clarifies some key ideas and is aptly named “A Beginner’s Guide To Feminism”: https://oxwomin.wordpress.com/2017/11/08/a-beginners-guide-to-feminism/ A short transcript of an interview with Kimberlé Crenshaw which begins to introduce the nuances and complexities of feminism, including intersectionality theory: https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/kimberle-crenshaw-intersectionality-more-two-decades-later References: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/06/nigeria-horrific-reign-of-impunity-by-sars-makes-mockery-of-anti-torture-law/ https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/hr-skills-news/gender-pay-gap/81441/ https://media.samaritans.org/documents/SamaritansSuicideStatsReport_2019_Full_report.pdf https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/tackling-the-root-causes-of-suicide/ https://www.amazon.co.uk/FEMINISM-EVERYBODY-Passionate-bell-hooks/dp/0745317332 Antony is a second year Geography student at the University of Edinburgh.

Bethan Bottomley reflects on the differences between 'self care' and 'personal care' and how the challenges she faced in lockdown provided the chance for her own self care to develop into meaningful actions. Reflecting on the year so far, the term ‘biblical’ doesn’t feel at all melodramatic. Just about every test on our resilience as a species has been thrust on stage and, throwing into sharp focus the harsh realities of our crumbling society. The government guidance towards self care in lockdown was reflective of the negligence that the mental health sector has faced since its existence, and a feeling of hopelessness was a comparable pandemic in itself. The introspective nature of being locked inside was challenging even for the most resilient of us; the relentless cycle of updates and news forced us face to face with the systemic problems that are holding us back. We were forced to challenge the failings of the current societal formula and the truth that if meaningful and sustainable changes are not made now, we limit any hopes we may have for the future. When reflecting on the guidance given for self care over the last few months, the governments all too familiar bandage approach lacked a consideration for the long term. Yes, taking regular walks and checking in with friends gives my brain the space to breathe, but it does not quiet the anxiety for the future that can only come from transparency and radical action. This strange and incomparable time saw my mental health be both better and worse than ever before and the juxtaposition caused me to consider the difference between, what we call ‘self care’, and personal care. When we take care of ourselves personally we are tending to our personal needs, and by all means sometimes that's obtaining the material things that help us to relax. However, when we talk about self care, we have to make room to consider all the things that attribute to the ‘self’. This includes all of the components that contribute to who we are - our jobs, our family, our culture and essentially all of the things that nourish our development as human beings. The things we enjoy are no less important because of this, and making time for yourself is no less of a priority, but it’s time to reframe the idea of self care not just as a new house plant or a face mask (both kinds!), but instead as acts to meaningfully improve our quality of life. Even as I am writing this, a beautiful black athlete is on the news talking about how she uses skin lightening creams and serums in order to ‘improve’ her body image. She is saying she does this not just for her own self esteem, but also to earn the respect from sponsors and coaches that she should be receiving as a result of her performance alone. This is where we see capitalism rearing its ugly head,forming this bandage approach to self care. By marketing serums and spa treatments as a quick fix to the problem, we fail to expose and treat the rotting infrastructure underneath. This athlete is told that her skin is the problem. It’s not, racism is, and no amount of cream is going to fix it. This modern, materialistic approach fits in with how we currently view the narrative of self care; the idea isn’t completely on a tangent - anything that helps to improve your mental and physical wellbeing will aid in taking care of the self. So self care in this sense is a flexible term, but even so, when we are practicing this notion of self care, what (and who) are we practicing this for? In her essay ‘A Burst of Light’ Audre Lorde reflects on self care as “an act of political warfare” in a revolutionary approach to exploring her identity as a black, lesbian woman. She discusses in this essay that practicing self care rituals ensures resilience to the homophobia and racism that she faces every day around every corner. In this sense, Lorde looks after herself in order to maintain the strength to keep writing and empowering other women facing systemic oppression, which in turn makes the very act of her writing the most powerful self care. Lorde spent most of her adult life writing about white supremacy and feminism. Without her writings, and the collective effort of activists taking up space and projecting their voices, movements like Pride and Black Lives Matter wouldn’t be making the waves in society and culture that they are today. Societal progression is the result of self care; it is the result of people demanding better. This is when we see that the impact of self care in tackling the roots of an issue that affects your life and your ambitions, as opposed to bandaging the short term effects, is the best and most effective way that we can care for ourselves; not just by influencing our own situations but by also impacting on the lives of the people that matter to us. This could include our family members that come from the same socio-economic backgrounds as us, our friends whose gender or the way that they choose to worship is not respected or our planet whose resources for surviving are being looted. It could be anything that transcends ourselves beyond our personal needs and helps to improve our quality of life. I have been very fortunate over the last half a year and although coronavirus has directly impacted me in many ways, it also gave me the time to truly focus on my mental wellbeing. I began therapy at the beginning of lockdown and am thankful for the time this afforded me to focus on it without distraction. It also gave me the time to educate myself and to allow myself to be impassioned by causes that are close to me. It began by learning to make my own beeswax wraps and it developed into being active in tackling the structures of racism in my place of work. Self care in this way feels good, it feels nourishing and has meaning. We must start removing ourselves from the idea that activism is in any way self righteous. Self care is not indulgent, it is the only way that we can change the world. It may have taken a physical illness to expose the rife anxiety and need for radical self care across the world; but for whatever issue, new or old, that the effects of Covid-19 has helped to unearth, our activism towards them has to reflect the same patience and attention that we put into our personal care. Because candles and face masks (again, both kinds!) are nice, but dismantling systems of oppression is the most healing thing we can do for ourselves and the people we care for. Finally, for those of you reading now that are struggling with anxiety, know that for whatever uncertainties the future holds, the actions you take today control your history and you can put yourself on the right side of it.

Lucien Staddon Foster explores London's influence in Edinburgh and how University students should embrace multiculturalism as opposed to private school elitism in combatting bigotry and racism. It's hard to miss Edinburgh's uniquely strong English influence, especially that of London. It is so powerful that some parts of Edinburgh are often criticised as being an extension of London in terms of influences, attitudes and the Status Quo. Whether it's the ever-creeping prices of a pint, the growing London-calling student diaspora, or a simple shift in tempo and ambience, the influence of one capital on another is as inescapable as a signet ring at a JMCC dinner. This influence, however, is both a curse and a blessing, particularly from the eyes of a BAME student. Allow me to explain. “Whether it's the ever-creeping prices of a pint, the growing London-calling student diaspora, or a simple shift in tempo and ambience, the influence of one capital on another is as inescapable as a signet ring at a JMCC dinner. ” Just 8% of Edinburgh's population identifies as BAME (1). A stark contrast to the multi-cultural powerhouse that is London's 35% (2). Assuming discrimination and prejudice decrease with exposure to different cultures, peoples and lifestyles, the heavy influence of London on our capital can bring a shift in attitude that better welcomes the BAME people who call Edinburgh home. However, London is also home to vast inequality, much of which acts along racial lines, and with it, comes specific harmful attitudes, perceptions, and ignorance. Unfortunately, those uniquely London-based attitudes can be spread to Edinburgh through its student intake and run the risk of becoming increasingly widespread, exacerbated by Scotland’s lower diversity. As far as the University is concerned, there is already a poor track record when it comes to diversity. The University of Edinburgh takes in half as many BAME students as its Russell Group peers3, and many degree programmes see significant attainment gaps based on ethnicity (as much as 17.7% for my course (4)). Thus, a disturbing pattern against the potential satisfaction and success of BAME students is revealed and it becomes reinforced when student origin is considered. As of 2018, 34% of Edinburgh University students are privately educated (5), likely hailing from predominantly White and wealthy schools and colleges. Whilst the obvious issue here is over-representation, given that just 7% of the UK population is privately educated, another sinister situation arises, one regarding the students themselves. There's a certain type of student I'm sure you're well aware of; you can spot them from a mile away. Charged with pride for their South London or home county independent school; they waltz through the streets with a swing of flairs and a flash of a signet ring, with a demeanour consisting of equal parts arrogance and insecurity. There is nothing inherently problematic about privileged upbringings or needing to be noticed wherever you go, and I have no quarrel with those of us with those traits. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental common denominator for those matching this caricature. Beyond their work with foreign children on their gap year, they have likely had little to no real contact with BAME people. Think about their schools; you can probably count the pupils with a complexion darker than the façade of Appleton Tower on one hand. When the time comes for them to connect with one another in the fine establishment of Pollock Halls of Residence, they often bring with them harmful bigotry fuelled by a lack of diversity in their home lives. I'm sure if you spoke to any BAME friends of yours they'd return with countless examples of discriminatory acts and attitudes they have encountered during their time here. As your friends aren't here, I will lead with some personal examples of mine. "When the time comes for them to connect with one another in the fine establishment of Pollock Halls of Residence, they often bring with them harmful bigotry fuelled by a lack of diversity in their home lives." To preface this, allow me to tell you about myself. I am of mixed heritage, equal parts Black Caribbean and White English. I came to the UK when I was tiny and have lived here ever since. I am very obviously not white but just about ambiguous enough to throw a few White Brits off the scent. During my time at Edinburgh, specifically, when I was in halls, I have been subjected to all forms and flavours of bigotry. And more times than not, the culprits have been from the very social group I have been talking about. I have been questioned on whether I've been involved in knife crime or whether I know any Black person they can pluck from their memory. I have been praised for "how well (I) speak for a Black guy". I've endured three complete strangers pulling and running their hands through my hair on the middle of an ATIK dance-floor. I have even been called "Tropical Boo" by another stranger in a club, who I am sure meant well but it comes across as nothing but a fetishisation of my ethnicity. So why then, do some from the most diverse parts of the UK harbour such bigotry and disrespect? I certainly don't have all the answers, but I am truly concerned about the president it may set in Scotland's White-dominated spaces. The "posh-boy banter" that's so prevalent in wealthy parts of the South, from which Edinburgh draws many students from, oozes with toxicity regarding ethnicity, race, sex, gender, religion and sexuality; and as a result, Edinburgh runs the risk of adopting such a culture. That's not to say Scotland doesn't have its own issues in regard to these, which it certainly does, but a specific type of prejudice and behaviour comes creeping in on top due to Edinburgh's strong ties to England's capital. "I have been questioned on whether I've been involved in knife crime or whether I know any Black person they can pluck from their memory. I have been praised for "how well (I) speak for a Black guy"." During this time of demonstration and solidarity with BAME communities, we must recognise our own issues and the nuances behind them if we hope to transition further towards equality. At Edinburgh University, I believe a start can be made by addressing the negative influences of the capital and its surrounding bubble of affluence, and in its place, the positive aspects must be adopted. Such that, we embrace London’s multi-culturalism rather than its elite. Through this, we can reduce the toxicity and hardship that plagues both our UK-based and international BAME students. If the White-dominated private schools don’t address the toxic behaviour that’s often so rampant within them, it is our job to make sure that culture has no place in Edinburgh. References: 1, 2 Equality Evidence Finder Scotland 3, 4 EDMARC 2019 – Student Report 5 Higher Education Student Statistics: UK. 2018/2019 Statistical Bulletin

Kate Charlton looks into the debate over taking down PornHub and the #TraffickingHub and how OnlyFans could be used as a more ethical means of sex work. Past Growing up as a young girl, porn was a dirty word that I was taught not to discuss. In sex education in  school, boys were taught about masturbation and porn whilst girls were taught about pregnancy and periods - the pleasure/practicality divide between boys and girls cemented from a young age. Like with me, for many women porn was a taboo subject. It has been ingrained into girls from a young age that sex is about reproduction, not pleasure. This stems from the harmful gender binary of women as innocent and domestic vs. men as powerful and virile. For women, the fact that porn and masturbation isn’t discussed with us at a young age reinforces the idea that for us, sex isn’t about pleasure because if we learn to enjoy sex then we might get pregnant. Boys don’t have this same issue and therefore, can be freely taught about shameless masturbation. This was why I saw women watching porn as liberating for their sexual prowess, charging a field dominated by men to reclaim sexual pleasure as their own. This was why I saw women watching porn as liberating for their sexual prowess, charging a field dominated by men to reclaim sexual pleasure as their own. Present However, people cannot claim to be feminists and enjoy the sex industry without taking active measures to respect and support its workers. It has always been known that PornHub is exploitative of its workers, and it has recently come to the forefront of news again with the #TraffickingHub campaign. The campaign, founded by Laila Mickelwait, aims to take down PornHub, and for the company to be held accountable for profiting off of the trafficking and abuse of women and children. They use the example of a 15 year old girl who went missing and was only found a year later after 58 films of her abuse emerged on the site (1) . Another 14 year old girl was kidnapped at knifepoint and her r*pe was filmed and posted on the site, and only when she posed as a lawyer after months of asking for them to take it down, did the site finally do so to avoid legal action (note: not for ethicality or compassion). PornHub has no systems in place to regulate such videos being uploaded in regards to age nor consent and only an email address is required. Subsequently through ad revenue on these videos, PornHub profits millions upon millions. “Tell your bff that sex workers are not the enemies of progress, that they are in fact exploiting the system built to oppress them, and that this alone is iconic as fuck” - Florence Given, 2020 The concept behind OnlyFans is a stepping stone for female sex workers to gain bodily and monetary autonomy over their work outside of male pimps and porn directors. Women finally have the chance and the platform to be their own boss from the safety of their homes and outside of the corruption of the present sex industry. Physical harm that plagues street work (work necessary for some women as a means to survive) and also film set work isn’t an issue as women can control what they uploaded and when, essentially the freelancers of the sex industry. In spite of the promising model, OnlyFans doesn’t come without its issues.  Hacks and underage workers (for example in BBC documentary Nudes4Sale (2)) plague the site.  With technology as advanced as it is today, subscription content can be illegally downloaded and  uploaded onto PornHub for free without reprimand from the website (a perfect example of why PornHub is corrupt). OnlyFans does require age verification but this is easy to cheat; the law doesn’t require these sites to ask for ID and so it is clear why there is a lack of incentivisation in these industries to be thorough. With influencers being open about OnlyFans and the rewards they reap, it is easy for underage and impressionable people to see how much money they are earning and want to do it themselves, but like with PornHub this can lead to exploitation. If age verification checks were vigilant, however, and there was no risk of underage users, then OnlyFans does have the potential to be a trailblazer in the revolutionising of sex work. The response to OnlyFans has been an eye opener for me. Debate on Twitter consists predominantly of men shaming women for 'not respecting themselves' for building up their own profile on the website, versus the defence consisting mostly of women who stood up for the positivity in women's bodily autonomy. Why is it that these men are deluded into thinking their opinion matters on the topic of the female body? They happily partake in watching PornHub, where notoriously women are abused and mistreated in the name of good content for their pleasure (as I will explore below). Are men scared now that women have risen up the ranks and have control over their content? How can it be that men can guiltlessly enjoy content on PornHub but shame the very people that they use for their pleasure? Why shouldn't women be able to take control and capitalise on the sexualisation of their bodies that are a product of hundreds of years of patriarchal society? There is a lot of stigma around the field of sex work, some criticism deserved in terms of how the industry treats its workers and the safety of the job. However, people must respect sex workers like the humans they are. The work they do is necessary for their livelihood and they just want to survive like you and me. Furthermore with the rise of OnlyFans, sex work can potentially be safely regulated to protect its workers. OnlyFans requires age consent in the form of picture ID taken alongside the picture of the account holder so users must be verifiably over the age of 18. If this verification process is airtight then the website could be the new normal of safe and ethical sex work. Although as I have previously stated there are many shortcuts around this, PornHub doesn’t require users to do this at all which is indicative of their ethics regarding the exploitation of underage people. Future The future of porn relies on safety and ethicality for its workers. In the era of #MeToo, it is our responsibility as a society to support and protect sex workers and create an environment for them to work where they won't come into harm. In my opinion, if you watch porn but don't support the autonomy of (legal) female sex workers on OnlyFans, then you are being a hypocrite. OnlyFans does have vast progress to be made with it's model and the practical application, in that verification checks must be even tighter and underage girls protected, but the concept behind the website is paving the way for exploitation-free and abuse-free sex work. For the future of porn to be ethical, PornHub must be taken down. I implore you to abstain from using the site in the meantime to prevent the website traffic that funds them. That being said, womxn remember it is perfectly normal to enjoy (ethical) porn and masturbation and it isn’t just something men are allowed to do! To be active in bringing down PornHub sign the petition (which already has over 1 million signatories) on the TraffickingHub website: https://traffickinghub.com (1) Traffickinghub - Shut Down Pornhub and Hold Its Executives Accountable for Aiding Trafficking [Internet]. Traffickinghub.com. 2020 [cited 4 July 2020]. Available from: https://traffickinghub.com/ (2)  BBC Three - Nudes4Sale [Internet]. BBC. 2020 [cited 4 July 2020]. Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p087m1nh

Millie Lord provides an insightful extended piece into society's prejudices against those who are disabled, challenging readers to reflect on their own preconceived ideas and misconceptions about what it means to be able-bodied and what must be done for greater inclusivity. Let me set the scene. You're with a group of friends, who you consider kind, socially conscious, and liberal- in a nutshell, ‘woke’. As Black Lives Matter has recently (and necessarily) exposed, even the most ‘liberal’ of groups can contain deep subconscious prejudices, which are built into our systems. However, I usually find that in liberal groups, if a racist, or sexist, or homophobic joke is made, or slurs are used, although (questionable) people laugh, someone will always challenge the bigotry. The one exception, that is still considered perfectly acceptable to joke about, is disability. Whether joking with friends, in a political debate, or chatting, the spectre of ableism is always seen as acceptable in conversation. I have rarely seen anyone step in and challenge assumptions about disabled people. This has been especially visible at university, where ableism is as common as skipping lectures. Even the most ‘liberal’ of groups can contain deep subconscious prejudices, which are built into our systems. Perhaps the reason why I notice this is because I have been lucky enough to grow up alongside Florence, my older cousin who has Down’s Syndrome and is a medal-winning athlete for GB Down Syndrome Swimming. Coming from a family that sees disability as part of normal life, I’ve come to realise that ableism is everywhere. No matter how ‘woke’ the group, ableism is rife. Whether this is seen by using derogatory slurs like ‘retard’ or ‘mong’ to insult someone, doing mocking impressions of people who are clearly mentally disabled, or making fun of the autisticm, ableism is the prejudice that is never called out. It is ignored and normalised,  even within movements touted as intersectional, ignoring the fact that disability intersects with other systemic disadvantages. Those who claim to be inclusive often ask, “What's the harm in joking?” The answer to that is that ableist jokes stoke the fires of exclusion, maltreatment, and prejudice. Jokes and malicious humour, whether well-intentioned or malevolent, have always reinforced ableism by instantly labelling the disabled as an undesirable ‘other’ to normal human society. Jokes have “100% contributed to exclusion” says Veronique Garrett, an advocate for  disability rights, and my aunt. Since having Florence, 26 years ago, she has campaigned on inclusion and disability rights in countries including the UK, North Macedonia, Russia and Kyrgyzstan. “Primarily, [jokes] make them out as being different, unusual, a curiosity.” And the disabled are not a curiosity; they make up 20 million of the working age population globally. Despite the fact that disabled people are (newsflash) humans just like anyone else, and demographically significant, common ableist jokes set the disbaled apart as something strange, and deserving of mocking. I’m not trying to ruin fun: as Veronique argues, disability “does not have to be humourless”. Self-deprecating humour, black humour and witticisms about disability are common within the disabled community; many find it cathartic to joke about their condition. A great example is Francesca Martinez, a comedian, who has cerebral palsy, but simply refers to herself as ‘wobbly’. Even amongst our family, Florence is teased about aspects of disability. However, that is separate to laughing at someone: there is a significant, and obvious, difference between familiarity and mocking. Mocking has real impacts. Despite the fact that disabled people are (newsflash) humans just like anyone else, and demographically significant, common ableist jokes set the disbaled apart as something strange, and deserving of mocking. One of the primary impacts of ableism, especially ableist jokes, is the propagation of damaging misconceptions about disabled people. The way that we regard disabled people directly impacts how we treat them, be that as fellow humans, or as patients, consumers, and employees. Therefore, misconceptions can lead to prejudice and discrimination against the disabled, personally and institutionally. So what are the most common misconceptions? “The biggest misconception is that all disabled people are unhappy and want to change,” says Veronique. This is clearly not true, evidenced by the fact that, despite the unjust discrimation, many disabled people live happy and healthy lives. Disability does not have to define one’s life, and if given the right support, disabled people can truly live fulfilled lives. Another major fallacy, with real world impacts, is that “disabled people don't want to be independent”. In reality, “they want, like all of us, to be in charge of their lives”. And this is crucial to understand. For a more inclusive society, we all need to listen to the disabled, and let them plan their own lives. The misconception that the disabled cannot be independent can lead to unfair legal and medical treatment, and further limit opportunities. Over half of adults with mental disabilities still live with their parents, which is of course a different decision for each individual, but often their abilities are underestimated due to misconceptions. Other misconceptions that Veronique listed included disabled people being seen as “brave”, that they only want to mix with other disabled people, and that disabled people are unable to be sexually active and have fulfilling relationships. And all of these have real world consequences. The idea that disabled people only want to mix with each other further alienates and segregates them, whilst the narrative of ‘brave disabilities” is patronising, especially when disabled people are called brave for simply living their lives, or being out in public. As well as creating misconceptions, the othering of disabled people has more real world impacts. What does this othering do? It makes it acceptable to undertake more insidious forms of bullying and abuse, as well as increasing the stigma of being a visible disabled person, be that on the street, socially, or in a workplace. If we’re allowed to laugh at disabled people for being different, it’s not that many steps away from treating them worse because they are different. And examples of that are rife- although we have come far, insidious ableism is still virulent. The idea that disabled people only want to mix with each other further alienates and segregates them, whilst the narrative of ‘brave disabilities” is patronising, especially when disabled people are called brave for simply living their lives, or being out in public. Firstly, in the workplace. In the U.K, in 2019, 53% of disabled people participated in the workforce, compared with 82% of non-disabled people, a significant rift. The gap has closed slightly due to the growth of technology, but it is still major, and many of the disabled who are in work face discrimination. Stigmatisation is rife- however accessible a company makes its offices, if you are surrounded by mocking, or disbelief that you can work, it is hardly conducive to long-term employment. When the disabled are mocked, companies are hardly going to spend time and money working to increase accessibility, even though a diverse workforce actually leads to better innovation. Another, even more disturbing consequence, is those who believe they can take advantage of the people that society designates as ‘other’. This can be particularly be seen in sexual assault. According to NPR, in the U.S people with intellectual disabilities are sexually assaulted at a rate seven times higher than the non-disabled. This is criminal, and a much underreported subject- despite the wave that #MeToo set off, disabled victims of sexual abuse were again left out and ignored. When we treat disabled people as other, be this through jokes or vocabulary, we are creating a society where the sexual assault of the vulnerable is permitted. By turning a blind eye to ableism, the message we give is that we do not care how the disabled are treated. That we are ambivalent in their struggle for rights. And this leads to serious bullying and discrimination. So how should we treat disabled people then? Easy answer: ask them. And what they say is pretty self-explanatory. Veronique, who has worked with countless numbers of disabled people, believes that first of all, “do not pity disabled people.” No one likes to be pitied, and pity is a shaming emotion, not an empowering or equalising one. We must also keep our assumptions in check: “don't assume that just because you can't see a disability that there isn't one”. “Practice inclusion. Adjust your language. Don't make jokes at disabilities expense at all.” It all comes back to this: no matter how liberal you think you are, if you are still using ‘mong’ as an insult then you are prejudiced, and contributing to the devaluing of disabled lives.  “And I think we can all challenge accessibility issues”- if we notice that a space we live or work in would be inaccessible to someone with a disability, complain about it. Start a campaign. “Practice inclusion. Adjust your language. Don't make jokes at disabilities expense at all.” Of course, although there is much to do, things have improved. When I asked Veronique how things had changed since Florence was born in 1994, she explained that the entire paradigm had switched. “It was very much based on a medical model, where in order to rectify the solution of a disability, you were treated. And disabled people were seen as being unfortunate victims. Whereas now it's much more a societal model, where society adapts to and accommodates  the person”. The UK, despite some of our issues around disability, is leading the way for inclusion, and ensuring the disabled are not seen as a burden or problem. However, it is also important, in Veronique’s words, to learn from others. Although nations in the Global South often have a poor record on disability, and institutionalise the disabled, they do “bring something to the table themselves”. Institutionalisation is obviously cruel and ineffective, but some aspects of other cultures can teach us. For example, in many Asian nations, families that don’t give their children up to orphanages have large family networks, and, Veronique argues, “there's a huge nurturing and love that often people in the West don't give.” We need to take that into account, and should certainly not be congratulating ourselves yet on disability rights. Crucial to stopping all ableism, especially of the casual kind, says Veronique, is education. “Society needs to be educated early on or what to say what disability is and how it affects people. And how disabled people view themselves.” For many children growing up with only rare encounters with disabled people, it is easy to fall into patterns of laughing at or fearing those different from you. A combination of visibility and education from a young age will be crucial to reducing the large percentage of ableism that is caused by ignorance, rather than cruelty. Maybe then, casual ableism will finally die. Jokes about the disabled are both a symptom and a cause of ableism, and ableism kills. As the COVID crisis has demonstrated, systematic disregard or ignorance of people’s lives can and does kill. Crucial to stopping all ableism, especially of the casual kind, says Veronique, is education. Although narratives around disability have been changing for the better, the COVID crisis has set back progress. On the one hand, people have become more aware of what it feels like to be trapped at home long-term, and working from home (for privileged jobs) has rapidly become the norm, meaning working and socialising may become more accessible for the physically disabled. However, coronavirus has led to an extremely dangerous conversation around the disposability of disabled lives, propagated not only by the media, but also our own government in some cases. How we view disabled lives, and the reduced value our society places on them, has been laid bare by coronavirus. As news of the pandemic began to filter in, and the government decided to have a dalliance with herd immunity, the message this sent was that disabled (and elderly) lives were not worth the expense, not worth the inconvenience of treating them. Of course there was initial uncertainty over the science of COVID, and understandable uncertainties around lockdowns, but disregard for the disabled has continued throughout the crisis. When it seemed as if the NHS would be overwhelmed, discussions around triage demonstrated that we are yet to accept that disabled lives can be as fulfilling as able-bodied lives, with the seriously disabled viewed almost as collateral damage. The disabled were recommended to shelter, but if they got ill, those lives were then seen as less important. Some medical trusts, in Wales and Somerset, even issued “do not resuscitate” forms to disabled patients, including autistic patients, which mean emergency services would not be called if they contracted coronavirus and symptoms worsened. The disregard for life is staggering. As Veronique said, “you can’t put a value on a persons’ life”. But, sadly, that is exactly what we have done. The latest figures show that over 22,000 disabled people died from coronavirus, between 2nd March and 15th May, equivalent to ⅔  of all deaths. According to the BBC, this means that working-age disabled women are more than 11 times more likely to die from coronavirus than able bodied peers, and the rate for disabled men was 6.5 times higher than non-disabled men. There is obviously a biological reality in terms of the immune system, with physically disabled perhaps more likely to contract COVID, but these figures include mental disabilities, who’s understanding and inclusion in lockdown procedures have not been considered. Working-age disabled women are more than 11 times more likely to die from coronavirus than able bodied peers, and the rate for disabled men was 6.5 times higher than non-disabled men. So let this be another one of things we should have known for a long time, but are only really learning post-COVID. Ableism, be it jokes, slurs, or worse, kills. Exclusion kills. And it is our responsibility to make the changes that stop this. Subtle ableism may only be the tip of the iceberg, but it creates the mindset that allows tragedies such as this. It is our responsibility to re-educate ourselves.