The Equal by International School of Lausanne

THE EQUAL SPECIAL EDITION | JUNE 14, 2019

Illustration by Jade Tan

EQUALITY WEEK SCHEDULE

PRIVILEGE

f you are reading this article, you are one of the privileged ones. That’s just a fact. And no, please don’t expect this article to be of any great interest or insight. I’m not, of course, suggesting that reading these words is a privilege. But taking the word privilege to mean ‘an advantage that is only available to a particular person or group of people, all of us within the ISL community are, by definition, privileged in a socio-economic sense. Yes, there are varying degrees of wealth which exist between the families from our community, but to some degree, this is irrelevant. To put it into perspective, the Global Wealth Pyramid (compiled by Credit Suisse) provides some interesting statistics to ponder. Half of the world’s wealth belongs to the top 1% of adults. If we look at the most affluent 10%, they hold 85% of the world’s wealth. As for the top 30%? 97% of the world’s total wealth. It’s safe to say that we all sit comfortably towards the top of the pyramid, and many families within the ISL community sit loftily at that highest peak, the 1%-ers. If you stop to reflect on these figures, and picture them in any way that you like, they are quite astounding. I like to picture ten people walking into a room, where a sizable delicious pie (chicken, mushrooms and leeks, if you’re interested) sits in the middle of a table. It’s certainly big enough for all of them. Each of the ten takes a number at random from a hat. Somebody chops off a bit of the crust from the outside - a burnt bit, and not too much... say, 3% of the total pie, perhaps. They give it to the seven who were given the unlucky numbers, and send them off somewhere else to share and enjoy their meagre morsel. The remaining three eat what they want. And then, seeing that most of the pie is still there, they can choose what to

do with it. For these three, there will be another pie tomorrow, after all. I’m sure that there are plenty of inaccuracies with this analogy, which an economist could point out. But as an English teacher, I quite like its simplicity: some people, just by chance, have more than others. Far more than they need.

We have opportunities in life that the majority of others do not. So back to the point: we are undeniably in privileged positions, and we have opportunities in life that the majority of others do not. The interesting thing is how different people feel or respond to being in such an advantageous position. When the notion of privilege (be it of wealth, gender or any other factor) has been raised with students over the years. In various manifestations and conversations, I have witnessed a range of reactions and responses. As well as the more commonly conveyed sense of relief or thankfulness, these have - on occasion - included others, like embarrassment, pride and even belligerent defensiveness. Allow me to provide an approximate quotation from an ISL student (who has since departed): “It’s not down to opportunity. If I was born into any culture with any gender, I’d work hard and make something of myself. There are libraries out there. My parents only earn lots of money because they work very hard, you know. That’s all that matters.” There are one or two things that one could potentially take issue with there...but let’s not. It’s understandable that there are dif-

Aidan Kirby ferent reactions. Of course there is no reason for somebody to feel ashamed or guilty about the opportunities they have been given in life, just as there is no reason for somebody to feel pride or to brag about the position that they’re born into. None of us chose to be born into the lives we did, just as none of us have chosen our gender, our sexuality, our eye colour or any of the other things that make us who we are. As the singer and comedian Tim Minchin points out in an excellent graduation speech (that, incidentally, everyone should watch): where we are today is entirely down to luck. It’s all luck. All of it. Once we accept that, we become humble and empathetic and have greater clarity about the world around us. So let’s go back to that pie. If luck when the numbers were picked, rather than hard work or choice, has granted us access to the feast on the table, that’s not to say that choice doesn’t become the most important thing from this point on. It does. We get to choose what we do with the pie - the opportunities, education and resources that we have access to. We can choose to think of others, or not. We can choose to recognise the opportunities that we have been afforded with gratitude and act accordingly and empathetically, or not. It’s often wise to finish with somebody else’s words, so I shall. Tarana Burke, the founder of the #MeToo movement, put it most eloquently when she said: “Inherently, having privilege isn’t bad, but it’s how you use it. And you have to use it in service of other people.” Food for thought.

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE Riccardo Catalano

et me present a situation to you: you are talking to friends, having a nice conversation and joking around. As the conversation continues, your friend brings up a video he’s seen recently about homophobia. The topic is interesting, so you indulge your friend and join in. You hear an interjection from across the table, “Oh god stop talking about them!” Confused looks follow the source of the comment, who adds, “Gays are disgusting, I’m gonna throw up.” You question her, “What if your brother came out to you?” “I’d beat him into a real man,” is her reply. Meanwhile the bigot’s friends sit quietly, not challenging any of these atrocious comments, when you know that they are not homophobes themselves. The ethical question is whether inaction in the face of such vile statements is equivalent to supporting these opinions? Is the willful ignorance of your peer, or anyone’s prejudice ever ethically acceptable? My answer is a definitive no: inaction is equivalent to bigotry. When you do not challenge a hateful and dangerous speech, you allow it to fester in individuals and in society as a whole. The bigot portrayed in the story’s thoughts when not challenged, will be interpreted by those listening as acceptable, and the bigot will feel that their views are correct and shared by all. In our society we of course would not collectively be homophobic. So why are we silent when we hear such remarks? Is it timidity? Fear of being seen as “triggered”? Or is it perhaps due to the bystander effect, the social phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present? I think it is because of a combination of all these factors. Why try and defend homosexual people if you aren’t one yourself? Surely these are just words, they won’t lead to anything real. Statistics would disagree. LGBT students are twice as likely to experience bullying and physical violence and 9/10 LGBT students experience bullying. Clearly these are not just words being thrown around, homosexual people are being attacked. Prejudiced attitudes and attacks are rampant around the world, as seen in Chechnya, where “gay witch hunts” take place, as religious militant groups’ ideologies take precedence over human rights in parts of the middle east, and all over the world. There is a clear prevalence of Anti-LGBT sentiments, and these lead to violence and Human Rights abuses.

Illustration by Manon Libine

You may think that you are unable to enact change, that whatever actions you take won’t matter, but you’d be - fortunately - wrong. You will certainly remember the recent controversy in Brunei, a country whose existence you had probably neglected before the leader enacted a strengthening of sharia law. The laws would have made homosexuality, as well as many other things contrary to religious standards, punishable with death by stoning. The news caused a massive public outcry all over the world, with celebrities such as George Clooney calling for a mass boycott of all businesses owned by the Sultan of Brunei. The economic and social pressure, pushed by regular citizens like you and me, led to the Sultan going back on his words and repealing the proposed death penalty. We may not always have the opportunity for international influence to protect human rights, but we do have the power to enact change in our own communities. It is easy to retweet or repost an Instagram story showing support for a cause, but it takes courage to stand up for human rights in real life, when facing homophobia. I challenge you dear reader, for this Pride Month, to be proud, and brave enough to challenge anyone who spreads such draconian, homophobic ideas.

WORDS HURT

Manon Libine

IS TOTAL EQUALITY DESIRABLE?

he desire for equality in a society has been one of the most polarizing concepts in human history, and can be said to have possibly impacted our society more than any other. The desire for equal opportunity has gripped humanity for centuries; since the ancient times of Greek politics, democracy was established as a new form of government for that very purpose. Today, the development of a country is measured through a variety of different factors, societal equality being one of the most relevant of them. Our history has been completely changed through the ongoing fight for equality, being the leading cause for countless protests, revolutions, and actions, ranging from the American revolution against their British oppressors in 1776, creating one of the most powerful countries in history, to the Russian revolution in 1917, creating a world superpower which largely dominated all of Eastern Europe, and the apparent front adopted by the American military in its establishment of puppet regimes across the Middle East.

Total equality is impossible in society and would not be beneficial to society at all However, despite this inherent desire, I believe that total equality is impossible in society, and in fact would not be beneficial to society at all. As evidenced throughout history, the cost of such utopian society is too great. Although the rampaging inequality and poverty present during Margaret Thatcher’s first two years as prime minister and the aftermath of Gorbachev’s destruction of Soviet government structures through Perestroika and Glasnost were undesirable outcomes, I believe that they were essential to their respective societies, and helped them develop into the powerful countries they are today. In fact, it can be argued that the desire for creating total equality, as was done in communist regimes across the twentieth century, were much worse, and in fact resulted in some of the most tragic acts of genocide and authoritarianism in all of human history. The most clear example of this desire for total equalityresulting in criminal acts bordering on genocide could have been observed during the dictatorship of Joseph Stalin.

David Skigin

According to Timothy Snyder in his New York Review of Books opinion column Hitler Vs. Stalin: Who Was Worse? (2011), the approximate number of people killed as a direct result of Stalin’s authoritarian, ruthless desire for communism is between six to nine million, with some historians even arguing that figures could be even higher: in the tens of millions. The manifestos of Marx and Engels, insisting on giving power to the proletariat, were made at a time when the true understanding of what their dream would cost societies was still unclear. The assumption that human greed and individuality would be overpowered by the desire for equality were valid and understandable; after all, surely, the human soul must be altruistic from birth, and individuality would be willingly sacrificed for equality. Personally, I disagree with this notion, and instead believe in the individuality of each person, and the ability of each person to decide their own worth. The belief that humans will readily take on an altruistic persona for the greater good is foolish; time and time again, man has shown that his own greed and desire for personal recognition has overpowered almost any other emotion. Unfortunately, this has proven to be true through the characters of communist leaders; ranging from Lenin, to Stalin, to Gorbachev, who finally succumbed to reason and attempted to transform the Soviet Union into a quasi-capitalist country, their own greed overpowered the desire for a truly equal society, resulting in ruthless authoritarianism favoring government workers and those in power, or devastating corruption which still plagues Russian business today. When the ability to put oneself above another is taken away for a seemingly ‘equal’ society, man will attempt different, more ruthless, methods to put himself forward, as evidenced through the authoritarianism in most communist regimes throughout the twentieth century. Man must be able to prove his worth in a society by climbing a social hierarchy, and thus establishing himself through a meritocracy, satisfying his own greed and ego by ascending the social ladder and gaining power and authority. By taking away this primordial desire and opportunity in exchange for equality, a society collapses.

FRAGILE

Zoé Poinssot

WHAT SHOULD I WEAR TODAY? I’ve been told many different things. That I had to wear a dress to look pretty, That to look rich I had to wear rings, And that to fit in I had to live in a big city. I’ve heard that I had to wear heels to look taller, That to look as professional as a man, I had to wear a blouse with a collar, And that to look healthy I had to have a tan. See the problem is, that’s impossible. What I’ve just told you, Is the perfect description of a perfect woman, And no one is perfect. I shouldn’t have to wear a dress, Heels or rings to make you care. Who I am shouldn’t mean less, Than what I wear. What I want to wear, Should make me feel great, Even if I’m wearing sneakers with no flair, And a t-shirt that you hate. I don’t have to please you, Because it is my body after all, And I should be the one to enjoy the view.

Anonymous

OUR PROGRESS IN EQUALITY

n the fateful day of December 10, 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the 56 members of the United Nations. Almost 71 years later, we are told that the world has never been a more equal place to live in: thanks to our predecessors who fought for their rights while society was oppressing their every move. As for the parts of the world that we are mainly exposed to, meaning the western parts of the world, this is rather true. In countries like the United States, previously oppressed minority groups are now focusing on individual issues, instead of equal rights (at least, in regards to laws) as they have already achieved them. However, on a worldwide scale, how far have we actually gotten, or have we strayed from our path? And has our increasingly liberal society begun to censor other views, something that they were fighting against in the first place? Going back to the United States, given that Americans are one of the most outspoken people when it comes to protests about rights, we can analyze the climate even while being seperated by an ocean. For those who do not know, every year, the month of June is celebrated as Pride Month. This is in the honour of the Stonewall Riots, which kickstarted the gay rights movement, and now every year LGBTQ members celebrate their identities through parades. When Pride first begun in 1970, the anniversary of the Riots, it was one of the only times when LGBTQ people could be themselves outside and protest to be given the human rights that the then homophobic society saw them as being undeserving of not even half a century ago. Today, it has become a platform for political agendas to be pushed, and the news stories that we hear about it include someone wearing a gown soaked in HIV-positive blood.

To clarify, there is still a need to educate people in the US about gay rights and why they are valid. Outrageous and disgusting acts such as the recent murders of transgender women in Dallas remind us all why there should still be talk regarding the opression LGBTQ people face. Yet, is wearing a gown soaked in blood really saying anything? We are being bombarded by worst extremes of each school of thought. This is due to the people who, while trying to “defend” their ideologies, instead attack others using less logic than children in the playground. Even worse is that we are only shown the extremists of each group, who embarass everyone, including themselves. This sort of attitude doesn’t make people agree with someone, it makes them walk away. Seeing the struggles that minority groups in other countries go through make our constant bickering seem even more childish, because in the end, we, at least legally, are equals. In some other countries, there is a staggering amount of press censorship and silencing of individuals, using methods far worse than calling them a bigot.

We are bombarded by worst extremes of each school of thought. It is quite easy to brag about how far we have gotten while looking at our own society, but at a worldwide level, how much have we actually achieved? We still hear about how badly people are treated in countries like Iran on

Elif Civelekoglu television or the news, yet it doesn’t really resonate with us. Even the worst pieces of information we hear are ignored, yet manspreading is apparently important enough to have a whole movement dedicated to it. Hearing about human rights struggles on the daily is something that our generation is the first to grow up with. Thanks to the internet, we can have access to these types of news whenever we want, or even when we don’t want to. If you compare the way minority groups are treated in some countries to ours, it makes it seem as though we have no right to complain. But is this the right way to go? Revolution and innovation have allowed us to come this far, and both of these are because of one thing: dissatisfaction. If there was a point in which people decided that the position they were currently in was good enough, we would have never advanced. And so, here is an alternate path we can take: getting involved in global rights, not civil rights. In summary, the difference between these two are fighting for equality for all, and the other is fighting for the people in a certain state. This strategy uses the feminist theory (not 3rd wave, which is what we now have, this was made in the late 19th century) called Triple Oppression. This theory states that as long as all forms of inequality remain undefeated, our world isn’t equal. What most western activists are currently doing is focusing on the smaller bits of inequality, and moving towards total equality. Yet, isn’t it unfair that while some will live in utopia, others will still be fighting for basic rights? Through knocking down these larger barriers, we can move towards worldwide equality together.

THE F WORD

hen speaking with an ISL alumni she spoke of a moment that stood out to her involving her classmates with regards to feminism during a lesson. The question that they were asked by their teacher was simple: who here considers themselves a feminist? She and a friend raised their hands, though the hands of their peers stayed by their sides. Would the outcome differ had they been asked if they believe in gender equality -- despite feminism inherently meaning gender equality? I can confidently say that the hand count would go up. Although I can find comfort in knowing that the majority of my peers would raise their hands for believing in gender equality, I cannot say the same for whether or not they’re a feminist. Feminism and Egalitarianism both strive for the same goal: equality for both men and women. Criticisms of the former includes the disdain for the very name itself, its criticizers often drawing attention to the argument: why is it called feminism, if it is the equality of the sexes? Cue the “I don’t consider myself a feminist; I consider myself an egalitarian.” Egalitarianism -- a term that appeals to those skeptical of feminism due to its more inclusive name -- is a political philosophy that states all humans are inherently equal and are thus entitled to equal commodities and opportunities. One may argue that egalitarianism helped shape feminism in one way or another -- which is a valid claim considering that feminism strives to consider all humans as equal. Additionally, both are socio-political movements. For the most part, feminism and egalitarianism differ in their beginnings. Feminism started as a socio-political movement advocating equality for women deeming that one cannot be discriminated or oppressed based on their gender -- in grassroot feminism’s case, the gender subjected to discrimination and oppression was female, hence the name. Through the evolution of feminism, it now strives to

achieve equality for all, regardless of gender. Where egalitarianism is reminiscent of the overarching principle in feminism of equality, it is not explicitly concerned with socio-economic problems that are unique to women, such as abortions. These are issues that feminism considers. One common factor that leads to young girls shying away from labelling themselves a feminist is our tendency to treat feminism as a monolith in which the radical characters overshadow the others. Feminism, as much as it’s a belief, is a movement that has numerous variations. The feminism that enjoys media coverage, especially on social media, is the radical feminism that is used by Social Justice Warriors. As a result of a select few radicals whose goals are to not achieve equality for the sexes but to eliminate male supremacy in its entirety, it has became a laughing stock; a punching bag for anti-feminists and a barrier for the movement. Radical feminism is still feminism but is adopted by a select few radicals who tend to be vocal about their beliefs. What feminism means to one feminist is completely different to what it means to another and with the SJW movement, what it means to be a feminist has been lost in translation. And this is dangerous because it scares young girls who do not wish to be associated with the radicals and pushes away young men who feel attacked. “Feminism is for all”; a forgotten sentiment lost in the blur of the SJW movement. Feminists are not man-haters -- a stereotype that taints the name and goals of feminism. I like to think that we all believe in the tangible goals of feminism: all women should vote, all women should be able to run for positions in power -- and not be at a lesser advantage because of their gender, and all young girls should have the right to attend school. These are all goals that reside in almost everyone in our society. But there are other goals of fem-

Ellie Parsons inism, less tangible and more deeply rooted in our society that cause people to shy away from feminism such as viewing chivalry as sexist, toxic masculinity, and intersectionality -- a branch of feminism that takes into consideration socio-political discrimination in different social categories including race, class, sexuality, and gender. It is these aspects of feminism that cause people to shy away from it. Issues such as toxic masculinity hit close to home; men can feel animosity from the feminist movement when their beliefs often appear to be targeting them. It is important to acknowledge and explicitly state that feminism’s attempts to eradicate these unjust instances in society -that just so happen to be cause by men -- are not born from a hatred of all men but from an awareness of how they can be harmful. An awareness can go a long way; we cannot solve the complex issue of gender equality in one day but we can take a day to educate ourselves. At first glance, the sea of signs at women’s marches reading “Strong Women Scare Weak Mean” can seem targeting to the male viewers. But nights reading into the history of the oppression of women’s independence and sexuality can quickly add a layer of depth. The best way to learn and mobilize a movement is to take part in it -- which starts from having the pride and confidence to call yourself a feminist. Despite the fear that you will be ridiculed or reduced down to a “crazy feminist who can’t take a joke” or “just wanting attention from the girls” -- it is in our best interests as individuals and a society to remind ourselves of the overarching goals of feminism and defend them. It is in our best interests to show solidarity to the issues feminism seeks to tackle. And it is in anyone’s best interest to be a feminist -- and not be scared to call themselves exactly that. I wait in anticipation for the day when my teacher asks: “Who here considers themselves a feminist?” and all my classmates’ hands rise.

WHEN PARENTS DON’T GET IT STRAIGHT

SL’s Asian community is prominent. From the colourful Holi celebrations to the lively Lunar New Year festivities, the impact of the community never fails to be recognised. ISL’s Asian population, while very small, is growing as the school becomes increasingly more diverse with each passing year. Without too much generalization, the Asian community in ISL can be divided into five main parts: the Western regions (ISL’s large Turkish community), mainland Chinese (a growing minority within the community), South Asian (India and Pakistan), South East Asian (Malaysia, Indonesia), and other East Asian Countries (South Korean, Hong Konger, and Japanese families are a very small but prominent group). LGBT rights in Asia are complicated. Gay marriage is only legal in 1 out of the 48 countries in Asia. In 21 countries, having same-sex relationships are considered to be a criminal offense. In seven of these countries, being involved with having same-sex activity is punishable by death. However, things are starting to get better for LGBT individuals in Asia with many homophobic laws being repealed.

Tanvi Anand

This is only the case in some situations. In non-religious cases, it is a matter of shame. The narratives present in ISL’s LGBT community are also overwhelmingly white. “ISL as a majority is mostly caucasian, so I’m not surprised,” said another Asian LGBT person. “I would, however, want to feel more represented from time to time.”

“It’s hard to balance these two sides of myself”

Asia is a very diverse continent with a diverse range of ideologies. This is evident within ISL’s Asian community. People tend to assume that those who are part of the community have a more conservative view on social issues, when this is only true in very specific cases.

This could just be an issue with society itself. 60.3% of the world’s population is Asian. However, finding representation is very difficult. Positive representation of LGBT individuals is really what helps to change pre-existing attitudes and shatter prejudices. “I find that it is actually a bit difficult remembering who were Asian LGBT icons I looked up to since a majority of them were of other ethnicities. While that’s not a bad thing, it still feels encouraging to see representation of your own ethnicity and sexuality you identify with,” said an LGBT individual from South-East Asia. Others also expressed this same attitude.

LGBT rights are usually never discussed in most Asian households. It is still a “taboo” to many, who have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” attitude where being LGBT should be hidden from everyone. Another commonly expressed attitude is shame, where being openly gay will be “shameful” to you, as an individual, and your family.

However, things are changing for the better. Many of those involved within the community are slowly changing their attitudes towards LGBT individuals. Representation of LGBT Asians is becoming more prominent in mainstream media. Many countries are slowly but surely taking steps to change things for the better.

Some parents also feel like High School just isn’t the right time to be finding out who you are. They don’t see the point in getting caught up in your sexuality and finding your identity when you can spend all that time studying for your physics test. Others also think that it is too early to be thinking about these things. “It’s hard to balance these two sides of myself,” said an LGBT individual who is also part of a very prominent Asian community. “One side is telling me that I can be all these things, whereas the other is encouraging me to stick to conformity. It’s hard to be two very different people at once.” Many people tend to blame religion for intolerant attitudes. Surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center also support this claim, linking very religious countries with a Muslim majority as being the most intolerant towards homosexuality.

Illustration by Jade Tan

WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?

he majority of people in ISL and Switzerland are lucky enough to be able to do what they want, regardless of their sex. However, not everyone has that privilege, and not every girl, like myself is able to say that they have a strong education system they can count on to prepare them for the rest of their life. And so, it’s no surprise that in certain countries, women have a different approach to education than men. Even if in some countries men and boys are at a disadvantage for education, the truth is that girls have to carry the majority of the discrimination and inequality in education on their shoulders. Over roughly the past 50 years, gender inequality in education has diminished substantially. Nevertheless, it still persists, and people need to continue fighting for equality until it is eventually achieved. According to UNESCO, “more girls than boys still remain out of school - 16 million girls will never set foot in a classroom - and women account for twothirds of the 750 million adults without basic literacy skills.” This summarized in one sentence would be: Girls are still not being treated the same as boys in regards to education, and this injustice is not, and never will be, fair. Learning about how girls and women aren’t allowed or supposed to do certain things is infuriating, not only because we are being deprived of our basic rights as human beings, but because we are expected to stay in the past, while the rest of the population consisting of men get a free “Advance to Go” card. This is no way fair or right, and even if we are moving away from this mindset, it still exists and dominates many people’s lives. There are many varying reasons for inequality against girls in schools and other ways; however, these are the main ones: In many underdeveloped or developing countries, women are seen as being less worthy than men, and because of this, do not need an as good, or no education. They are treated as secondary citizens and their lives are effectively controlled by their husbands or father. Another reason is that in many cultures, women are meant to abide by certain rules that men do not. When I went to Thailand for Christmas break, I was able to see this firsthand when going to temples. In the Thai culture, it is rude to show your legs and shoulders in temples or in sacred places, and so pants or shawls must be worn. When visiting temples, I found that I would constantly be told to put on a shawl to cover my knees when wearing shorts. However, when my brother would wear shorts showing his knees, nothing was done. While I do respect their culture; it is undeniably biased against women due to the majority of the rules being made by men.

Skye Erickson

Child marriages or pregnancies that prevent the girl from having an education are yet another saddening reason why gender equality persists in education systems. Poverty is also a huge issue; however, this impacts all genders and not just females. Religion is also a large factor because the majority of worshippers have been part of it for so long that they don’t realise that it is unequal to women. These are just a few of the reasons why girls are less inclined to go to school in certain places. However, these five reasons are already a huge amount, and there shouldn’t be this many excuses to discriminate against women.

This injustice is not, and never will be, fair South Sudan has been named the country that girls struggle the most to get into education, and according to The Guardian, “Nearly three-quarters failing to attend even Primary school.” The Central African Republic and Niger are also some of the worst countries for girls to get into education. This is because of the girls being victims of child marriages or are child laborers. However, even in countries with a higher budget on education like Ethiopia, girls still do not have as easy access to education due to the same factors, including cultural and economic barriers. Hopefully, in the coming years, people will begin to see this education imbalance as more of a problem and start advocating for it and trying to make people more aware of the issue. Girls not being given the right to education limits the chance that they will be able to go into the profession of their choice, or even have a job at all greatly. It also keeps them in the cycle of poverty or lack of development due to the females not going to school, not getting the experience needed for jobs, not getting a job, and therefore not being able to leave the place they live due to lack of money. If this cycle continues, breaking it will become harder as fewer people care about it. I hope that in the future, newer generations will not have to face the problems of gender equality and this problem gets the attention it needs. However, in the present, continue to feel grateful for what we have, and try to keep in mind that there are others out in the world who are being denied an education because of their sex.

STEP BY STEP

I LOVE THE TONY’S

As any good drama kid will tell you the Tony’s are way better than the Oscar’s. If you don’t know what the Tony’s are, they are the Oscar’s for honoring the art in Broadway. And today, as I watched the 73rd, I reflected on diversity in both film and theater. During the 2011 Tony’s, Neil Patrick Harris proclaimed that Broadway is not “just for gays anymore” but in my opinion, Broadway has just been getting gayer ever since. In 2013, the Tony for “Best Musical” went to Kinky Boots, a musical celebrating drag culture. Additionally, “Best Musical” Tony in 2015 went to Fun Home, another musical which is based on an autobiographical graphic novel about a lesbian coming out and dealing with her dad, who is also gay. There was also the revival of Angels in America, a play about the AIDS crisis, that received the Tony for “Best Play”

in 2018. But now I am excited to report that 2 of the musicals up for “Best Musical” this year have LGBT themes. Tootsie, one of the nominated musicals, is about a struggling actor, Michael, who decides that what he needs in order to land a role is to dress in drag. He later becomes a Southern belle, Dorothy, who ends up becoming a Broadway star. The other nominated LGBT musical is The Prom: where a group of washed up Broadway stars go on a crusade to a small town in Indiana and cancel on their prom because Emma, a lesbian, says that she wants to be with her girlfriend. People of colour were represented at the awards as well. Another nominee for “Best Musical” was Ain’t Too Proud, which told the story of the African American singer group “The Temptations”, with 3 of the actors nominated for “Best Performance”. Furthermore, one of the nominees for “Best Play”

Zoé Poinssot

McKenna Quam was Choir Boy, which represents African American culture of gospel choir. But even with all of this representation of minorities, Broadway still strives to do better. As Rachel Chavkin, the director of Hades Town accepted her first Tony, she called for the academy be even more inclusive: “I wish I wasn’t the only woman directing a musical on Broadway on season. There’s so many women and artists of colour ready to go,” Chavkin continued, “It’s a failure of imagination by a field whose job it is to imagine how the world could be.” And I think that when looking at movies and television, we should apply a similar lens. There has been amazing progress in representation, but in industries that require thousands of different perspectives from all different walks of life, we can always do better.

BRITAIN’S FIGHT FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Elliot Turner

or years, the UK has been openly fighting for gender equality like no other country. Beginning the suffragette movement, essentially running the country during WWII, and electing our first female Prime Minister in 1979, British women steadily took the main stage as the 1900s progressed. On the surface, the women of the UK have made a massive breakthrough, and there is no denying this, but from a modern outlook, there’s still a long and hard battle to fight. Maggie Thatcher, the first female British Prime Minister, made an audacious promise upon her election. She famously said, “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.’’. Whilst there’s no denying that she has left a lasting impact on British society, she was not able to project her belief in women’s ability to represent the parliament, as she was the only woman taking part.

There’s still a long and hard battle to fight Having promised to essentially “drain the swamp” of white male Oxford and Cambridge graduates in politics, she successfully formed a cabinet of entirely men. But why? It doesn’t seem to make much sense. We’ve experienced the same inequalities in Theresa May’s cabinet, 30 years later, which still seems to employ mostly white male graduates of the UK’s top 2 universities. I recently had the privilege of visiting 10 Downing Street. I couldn’t help but

Image modified by Greta Dalla Giacoma

notice that not only were there few women, but also few racial minorities working in support of the prime minister. Shockingly however, this trend was reversed when looking at the ground staff and workers performing repairs, who seemed to all represent a racial minority. Still no women though! My cousin, himself a white male Cambridge graduate, explained his view on this trend to me. Following my initial shock at observing the inequality, his reasoning provided a levelled and valid viewpoint on how this strange leaning arose. “It’s a tough issue,” he said. “We all want more equality, but we agree as a country that we condemn positive discrimination.” Positive discrimination is where an institution gives priority placement to those who represent a minority to help give them equal representation. This has famously occurred in US universities, as well as in Scandinavian countries such as Norway, that employ a variety of measures to ensure gender equality in greater society. He continues, “they use an anonymous application process for UK universities, including gender anonymity. Despite this, the gender imbalance still exists.”

It’s up to you how you view the UK gender imbalance. It’s unfair to say that there are no measures in place to help bring more women into politics, but of course more could be done. This risks becoming a question of equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity. Currently, the UK policy is based on preserving equality of opportunity to the greatest extent possible, but leaving out the question of equality of outcome. Is it worth changing this for greater equality, even if it means sacrificing our core values? The UK sits comfortably between Israel and Greece on the women in politics rankings collected by the OECD, with 22.8% of women in politics. This is well below the OECD average of 27.9%, which in itself is low. This illustrates the undeniable fact that not enough is being done to involve more women in politics. How exactly to bring upon such change is a heavily debatable topic that needs a lot more focus. Once women have the right to equal participation in how we run our country, we will truly earn the title ‘Great’ Britain.

LIKING ISN’T HELPING Jeremy Lloyd

have just come from an excellent Middle School assembly introducing equality week. First of all, I am very impressed with the work that the students and staff involved in the week have put into organising such a great programme of events designed to promote discussions about the injustices that exist in the world around us. One thing, however, troubled me. The presentation started with an image that has been widely shared on Instagram and Facebook in the past week. It is a post designed to raise awareness of the atrocities against civilians in Sudan, where there is currently an internet blackout. The presentation suggested to the middle school that, if they reposted this image, they were helping.

Then, luckily, we are free to carry on watching videos of a sheep dog playing Jenga, or to catch up on the latest Love Island conspiracy theory. We’ve done our bit for Sudan. Liking is fine. But liking on its own, is not helping. Liking cannot become a substitute for action or for changes in behaviour. Let’s be clear: Putting a rainbow filter on your profile picture during Pride does not make you an activist for gay rights if you still use the word “gay” to mean “rubbish” on a daily basis. Reposting a video about brutal conditions in sweatshops does not make you a champion of the oppressed if you buy Ralph Lauren t-shirts or underwear from Victoria’s Secret (both companies have terrible ratings for ethical trading).

I was immediately reminded of a public awareness campaign produced by Crisis Relief Singapore which came with the tagline, “Liking isn’t helping”.

Posting a sick picture of yourself at a climate change march does not make you an eco-warrior if you went to eat at McDonalds or Starbucks afterwards.

There is nothing at all wrong with liking or reposting content on social media that draws attention to injustice in the world. It is important to spread knowledge, and raise awareness of, injustice, especially when the victims may not have any way to broadcast their stories. But hold onto the fact that knowledge on its own does not lead to change, and awareness does not equal action.

The assembly finished with the presenters saying how they hoped equality week would inspire us all to try to make the world a better place. Encouragingly, they gave the example of Greta Thunberg, the 16 year old who sat in the cold outside the Swedish parliament every Friday because she was fed up with empty talk and decided she had to do something to create change.

It is easier than ever to feel good about ourselves, and our values, in the world of social-media activism. We see content about something that is wrong in the world. We feel angry. So we click “like”, or repost, or retweet. We feel like we’ve done something. We feel better. And, as a nice side effect, we look pretty “woke”. It is good for our image.

I hope Equality Week is a huge success and that it does make us think deeply about our privileged position in the world. I hope that we feel inspired to make the world a better place. Mostly I hope that, when the week is over, for the remaining 51 weeks of the year we remember that it is only through action, and changes to our behaviour, that we can really be a force for change. Remember: liking isn’t helping.

IT’S NOT A PHASE when i say “i’m bi” i seem to get the reply “are you really sure?” when i said “i’m bi” disappointment appeared on my parents’ teary looks if i say “i’m bi” and i don’t get questioned or denied, then i’ll know it’ll be ok.

This special edition was prepared by the Equality Week Team, and edited by: Ellie Parsons - editor in chief Jade Tan - graphic editor Fleur Hauter Elif Civelekoglu Greta Dalla Giacoma Íñigo Morales Cobiella

Aidan Kirby Claire Rudd Rafael Ribas

Jade Tan