Averts, adverts everywhere, not one is representative

Unedited version©  from http://ftpdigi.com/<-- check out the link for the published version and other interesting articles!

Advertising is everywhere. Billboards, online sidebars, ‘cookies’, pop-ups, TV commercials and so on bombard us every single day. Subconsciously, these images are affecting who we are and who we strive to be. It is the best marketing tool one can use to sell, sell, sell! We relate to adverts and become persuaded that we need certain products in order to become better versions of ourselves…but how many adverts are actually representative of us as consumers? In terms of the fashion and beauty industry, most people would agree that we all would like to see more sizes for men and women being sold and more varied beauty products that can be used by all skin tones. The public want more variation in what they are being sold. But what does this mean for advertising?

There is a huge movement for people of different body types and skin colours to be featured more in big brands from Victoria’s Secret to Topshop. More specifically, plus sizes have become an important feature of most clothing brands now. This seems like an acceptable request from the public as 45% of women alone in the UK are over a size 14. Logically, it would follow that not only would companies begin to supply this demand for more variety but also include this change in their advertising in order to show the public of their perceived acceptance and consequently, get our money. However this is not the case for the general advertising world. Victoria’s Secret has reportedly dropped in sales because of not succumbing to the public’s demand for more sizing, but are now beginning to up their sizes more recently. There may be a steady increase in the variety of sizes and products made available to us, however this is not reflected in their campaigns.  

Statistically, companies sell more products if they are being advertised on mainly Caucasian, very slender (or ‘lean build’ for men) and extremely photoshopped models. Many companies that typically use these models have reported that they have tried to use more ‘wide-ranging’ types of people (be it their size, hair type or skin colour) in their advertising but the overall sales never meet their sale targets as opposed to when they use the ‘average looking model’. It has been proven that sales are normally higher when it has been advertised on these certain models. Even when this industry use the models they deem to be ‘perfect’ for attaining high sales they still feel they must Photoshop the model to even higher standards of beauty. Female models are usually given smoother skin, hair extensions, plumper chests and are even ‘bulked up’ to look more curvaceous than they are in real life. All of these standards are put into place in order to gain higher sales.

A younger version of myself would look at these adverts and feel insecure that I could never achieve the same look as these models. As I have grown older, I understand that comparing oneself too often to images that have been so manipulated and ‘perfected’ is extremely damaging to a person’s confidence. The industry knows this, and thrives off humanity’s superficial insecurities. It is capitalism at its finest and ironically, it’s ugliest. Perhaps we gravitate more towards ads that demonstrate unrealistic standards of beauty because it has been subconsciously taught to us for so long that this one way is perfect, through the use of subliminal messaging or ingrained cultural thoughts.  Humans have always and will always want to become as flawless as possible and by purchasing a product that claims to aid us with this impossible fixation, we are almost narrowing the gap between the model and ourselves. When we perceive an artificially manipulated image, we automatically begin to compare ourselves with a fantasy that cannot be achieved, not even by the model. Yet overall, we still seem to favour these types of adverts over more natural or genuine ones because we are constantly trying to achieve what computer tricks can only do. The general public seem to want more representation in this industry (as we are the ones who actually control sales) and celebrate different types of beauty to show that there is never just one way to be beautiful. Although we are demanding one thing, we are buying into the exact opposite. Are we just part of the problem?

Nevertheless, there has been an increase in more realistic body positive adverts which can be seen in brands such as Dove or No.7 (as examples). They advertise on people of all ages, skin colours, styles and body types in order to sell their products. From a business standpoint, this route is definitely working for them. From a sociological perspective, it is having a tremendous progressive effect on us as a society, even if we barely notice it. Slowly but surely, these kinds of messages will hopefully increase and be reinforced over current widespread concepts of self-doubt and low confidence. It all starts with us actively choosing brands with more positive and realistic goals. Only then advertising companies may realise that reform is necessary and begin to make sales based on self-love rather than self-hate.

xx

Are humans naturally egoistic, aggressive and only interested in serving their own appetites?-concerning the British 'underclass'

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my second year at University of Birmingham©]

The idea that humans are egoistic, aggressive and selfish is a view traditionally held by conservatives. They argue that this has been demonstrated through the British ‘underclass’. This sect of society make up a small part of the proletariat and are increasingly homogenised (so to, the working class) by this negative concept of human nature. What is meant by the ‘underclass’ or the ‘undeserving poor’ is the “subset of poor people who chronically live off mainstream society (directly through welfare or indirectly through crime) without participating in it. They characteristically take jobs sporadically if at all, do not share the social burdens of the neighbourhoods in which they live, shirk the responsibilities of fatherhood and are indifferent (or often simply incompetent) mothers.”(Murray 1989, p5). Laissez-faire capitalists and conservatives (to name a few) share this fixed view of human nature and argue that their opinion has been evidenced through the underclass and the welfare state. I will argue that this perspective of human nature is flawed in favour of Humanist Marxism. Even the various rejections of human nature are more agreeable than this negative conservative view as there are limitations of using an overarching definition of human nature to understand every individual.

The conservative’s idea is that “we are selfish…we are competitive, we are cooperative, we are inherently flawed…(which) underpins their view of xenophobia, the feasibility of socialism, the efficacy of punishment, the eliminability of nepotism, the value or rationality of religion (and so on)” (Berry 2005, p404). Greed and the desire for power are considered our primary instincts, and so for efficient co-existence it is paramount that we have a well ordered and structured society in order to counteract our aggressive and anti-social tendencies. Hence, conservatives emphasise the need for law and order, strict policing and are naturally cautious of many liberal ideas including freedom and choice. Certain aspects of this opinion could be true of human nature, however it would be wrong to accept it in its entirety. The acceptance of this opinion in its entirety can negatively influence the treatment of poorer sections of society, as well as being too quick to generalise people in such a pessimistic way. It encourages the notion that poorer people are all alike, whereas in reality, their situations are vastly and significantly different from one another and should always be treated as individualistically as possible. Therefore, concepts such as the underclass can appear extremely derogatory and is “nothing more than a refuted concept periodically resurrected by conservatives ‘who wish to constrain the redistributive potential of state welfare.’” (Murray quoting Macnicol 1989, p6). This conservative opinion argues that people are naturally lazy and selfish, taking advantage of and abusing the welfare system and so, they appeal for more limitations and a rigid criteria in order to qualify for it. This view of human nature lacks empathy, contextual understanding and ignores the causal problems within societal and governmental structures.

Humanist Marxism is a historical view of human nature and provides a normative description for the concept. “Humanism is the view that as (humans are)…being(s) of praxis, man both changes nature and creates himself” and so is constantly self-developing, while human nature is “modified in each historical epoch” (Markovic edited by Bottomore 1983, p245). It focuses on the idea that “a human individual is at the same time a unique person, concerned with self-affirmation and objectification of his subjective powers, and a social being...” (Markovic edited by Bottomore 1983, p245), placing importance on the individual and their personal skills over a mistakenly generalised collective explanation reducing humans to uniformity and sameness, which we observably are not. Human nature is shaped according to what mode of production or governmental system is being used and so is not permanent or fixed but constantly evolving through time and with the times. Marx does not consider humans to be egoistic and violent by nature but autonomous, creative and thoughtful beings, contrary to conservative thought. This view encourages the thought that ‘poor people’ are “victims, and would be equally successful (as the bourgeoisie) if only society gave them a fair shake.” (Murray 1989, p6). Marx drew upon Aristotle’s idea of actuality and potentiality, “The tension between actuality and potentiality provides the basis for both systems of thought” (Dare edited by Fain 1991, p89). “Marx argued that reason (actuality) and potentiality are human attributes…the goal of the historical process has been to unite human thought and action. He attacked his fellow economists for assuming that, just because we have acted like egotistical animals, we are innately egotistical economic animals.” (Dare edited by Fain 1991, p89). With this, he reasons that humans actualise (through rational contemplation) their potential and adapts society rather than the other way around, thus there will always be the possibility of emancipating oneself from an oppressive and limiting structure such as our current one, capitalism (according to Marx). This view of human nature rejects conservative notions of egoism and aggression by offering another description which allows for a more feasible and optimistic understanding of the poor by critiquing systems of government (the context) that thrive off hierarchy and maintaining the status quo. It places blame on the powerful personages in charge of government and politics (holding them accountable) rather than those who are struggling for subsistence because of them. It can be argued that even alternative perspectives that reject the concept of human nature are more persuasive and plausible than the traditional conservative view.

A strong argument for anti-humanism that rejects the very idea of human nature is that of Peter Marshall and some anarchists. This rejection is on the basis that humans all have an individual uniqueness of their own that is incomparable to others, so there is no such thing as a general human nature for us all. “Anarchist communists hold a different view of human nature from the individualists, stressing that man is a social being who can only realize his full potential in society. Where the individualists talk about the sovereignty of the individual and personal autonomy, the communists stress the need for solidarity and co-operation.”(Marshall 2008, p8). This demonstrates the abundance of views that exist of this concept when “the only thing that one really knows about human nature is that it changes, and once existing conditions are changed human nature will change.” (Marshall 2008, p179). This encourages the thought that we should abandon the use of this ambiguous and disputed term as it implies there is a ‘fixed essence’ within humans that can only be expressed if there are specific conditions for it. It is far too misleading and confusing to use a term that describes a generalised collective abstraction of mankind when in reality we are all very different depending on various factors such as culture, society, history and so on. These perspectives are strong as they highlight the core weakness for using such a vague and unclear term to derive any real essence of mankind. Nevertheless, even if the term is problematic and difficult to define “it becomes a necessity in our times due to the misuse of the concept to promote a fatalistic and defeatist outlook that prevents people from evolving morally. Human beings are much more than merely ‘self-centred, aggressive, and competitive’.”(Author and date unknown, last paragraph).

There is definitely a need for the term human nature as it helps towards the understanding of humanity and human behaviour, hence it has a real practical function. The fact that it is so widely disputed with many differing opinions over what it is, means there is always fresh discussion and debate over the very essence of man, which can help us appreciate different aspects of what makes us who we are. To adopt the despondent conservative view described, is to condemn those who are struggling and trying to survive in society (ignoring the causal issues) whilst inhibiting any chance of moral and ethical development for all people. Humanist Marxism offers the strongest perspective as it shows how human nature is ever changing due to changes in societal structures, thus allowing for a more flexible and adaptive term for something so obscure. This explains the notion of the underclass and how they are actually victims of their government because of the inequalities it produces. Whilst greed and ambition may be motivation for some (if not all of us), it is not our primary instinct as we all have unlimited potential that can become hindered when our political structure does not allow for it to be free, but instead maintains the hierarchy of certain people at the top and others at the bottom. Consequently, Humanist Marxism successfully counters the opinion that humans are naturally egoistic, aggressive and only interested in serving their own appetites, by offering a more conceivable term. 

xx 

Bibliography

Charles Murray, The British Underclass-The Public Interest, published in The Sunday Times Magazine (November 26^th1989), part 1: Old concept-new label p5, p6, http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20060405_issue_099_article_1.pdf.

Christopher J. Berry, Political Concepts- Human Nature, published by Edinburgh University Press (2005), p404. 

Tom Bottomore, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (second edition), passage by Mihailo Markovic on Human Nature, published by Blackwell Publishers (1983), p245.

Gerald S. Fain, Leisure and Ethics Reflections on the Philosophy of Leisure- (section one) Ideals and Reality: Classical Leisure and Historical Change by Byron Dare, published by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (1991), p89.

Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible- A History of Anarchism, published by Harper Perennial (2008), p8. 

Author unknown, Why is it Important to Understand “Human Nature” in our times?, posted onto salemstate.edu (date unknown), last paragraph, http://w3.salemstate.edu/~hbenne/pdfs/reflections.pdf.

Can euthanasia without the patient’s contemporaneous consent ever be morally justified? If so, when?

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my second year at University of Birmingham©]

.

The complex moral issue of performing euthanasia without a patient’s contemporaneous consent can usually be morally justified. I would argue that consideration should be given whereby in certain cases, leaving the patient to suffer would be considered more immoral, and should outweigh any other ‘ethical ambiguities’ for the sole intention of alleviating their suffering and allowing them to die with dignity. It can be viewed as the ‘lesser of two evils’ or even a ‘necessary evil’ at times, however I argue that it is far from evil; it is in fact merciful and morally justified in most cases. This ‘non-voluntary’ form of euthanasia is usually performed when a patient is incapacitated and unable (through injury, illness, or a previous impairment) to consent to or request euthanasia themselves. In these unfortunate circumstances, the doctors and family involved in the patient’s welfare must make a decision that they think would be the most beneficial to that patient, not themselves.

The reasons as to why euthanasia without consent can be morally justified are fewer than the issues that deem it unjustifiable. However, just because non-voluntary euthanasia is potentially problematic in practice, does not mean that it is unjustifiable within morality. It is extremely situational and should always be carefully considered by both the patient’s family (for emotional purposes) and their doctor (for professional medical guidance). There are already many instances of passive non-voluntary euthanasia, for example when a feeding tube is removed from a patient in a persistent vegetative state or a life support machine is turned off on an infant patient. These ‘mercy killings’ are only ever performed passively (by allowing the patient’s health issue to naturally bring about their death) because there is little to no hope of recovery. Paradoxically, we do not require consent in the euthanization of animals as this is impossible to attain, just as some humans also cannot give permission, but are not always given the same right to die. “In euthanizing an animal…one has the sense of doing it a kindness…but also of doing it justice…Of course, doing justice to a person is different from doing justice to a cat, since they are very different creatures. But the basic principle is the same: kindness must be tempered with respect.” (Velleman 1999, p627).

When the genuine intention (overseen and safeguarded by professional staff) behind non-voluntary euthanasia is to be sympathetic and respectful towards someone or something that is enduring a crippling illness or injury, one exhibits empathy and compassion towards that patient in their care. One generally accepted view of morality is often conceptualized by both religious and non-religious people alike as ‘do to others what you would have done to you’. This moral consideration motivates the idea that non-voluntary euthanasia is only performed out of mercy and kindness for others, as one would want the same respect for oneself. As with any form of euthanasia, stringent rules and regulations must be put into place to help avoid any misconduct, negligence or abuse from both malicious or avaricious family members and unprofessional doctors. Part of a doctor’s job is his duty to relieve stress and pain from his patients. It can be argued that it is a doctor’s responsibility to euthanize their patient if they cannot request it themselves and is in a significant amount of pain, with not much hope of a successful recovery. In allowing any form of euthanasia, one is accepting that doctors must make more life and death decisions for their patients and ultimately decide about their quality of life and what is unbearable suffering. This is already a major part of their job and if passive voluntary euthanasia is permissible, then this could conceptually imply that non-voluntary should also be permissible, as doctors must make these tough decisions daily already (non-voluntary euthanasia would just extend this obligation very slightly).

A doctor must satisfy the patient’s interests by questioning friends and family over whether euthanasia in the particular patient’s predicament is what he or she would have wanted for themselves, if this cannot be accomplished then it is the friends and family’s interest for their loved one that matters most. Many people have passionate ideas over life and death; these interests must be carefully considered and respected. “Ronald Dworkin argues that this must mean that some people have interests beyond what he calls experiential interests; roughly, experiential interests are interests that our experiences be in some way positive…he argues that many people have a special interest in the nature of their death.” (Pickin paraphrasing Dworkin 2011, paragraph 6). The patient’s interests can be taken into account in an ‘advance decision’ (or directive). These ‘living wills’ circumvent the lack of autonomy they may find themselves in through illness or injury that may leave them incompetent. It is signed when the person is fully competent prior to any health crises and explicates their ‘critical interests’ on whether they would like to be passively euthanized in cases such as contracting a terminal illness, being persistently unconscious (comatose or in a vegetative state) or becoming permanently and severely mentally impaired. Thus, these wills are authoritative and challenges the objection to non-voluntary euthanasia because of the lack of autonomy the patient has. Autonomy can still be achieved through these directives which both honours and respects the patient’s interests and consent. Even if unanticipated by the patient, if it is believed that they would have wanted to die then “The (unspoken) interests and needs of severely incompetent (or unconscious) humans who may also be in the grip of intolerable suffering are just as important as those patients who are competent to control the circumstances of their death and wish to do so.” (Doyal 2006, p65). 

The most significant moral arguments for non-voluntary euthanasia is the protection of dignity and the prevention of pain and suffering. The protection of a patient’s dignity is extremely important when they are in a critical condition. “The patient’s pain is part of an inexorable process of deterioration, which we may cut short, or risk cutting short, without disrespect to the person’s dignity.” (Velleman 1999, p627). If the patient is in such a condition that they cannot care for themselves and become so irreversibly impaired that they need constant maintenance, some argue that they should be allowed to die in dignity rather than wait to die a most undignified and agonizing death. Many say that to wait for death in such conditions is degrading to that individual. In these irreparable situations, they should be euthanized in order to protect that patient’s dignity. Similarly, when the patient is suffering from unendurable pain, euthanization can sometimes be the most compassionate option given to that person, rather than live off potent painkillers that can only minimally ease their agony. “Suppose life involves such unbearable pain that one’s whole life is focused on that pain. In such circumstances, one could…decline the honor of being a person…We might acknowledge the great (and normally overriding) value of being a person… (Yet) allow that some bad conditions may overshadow its very great value.” (Velleman paraphrasing Kamm 1999, p613). The great intrinsic value of life is important to uphold, however if one has a life full of pain and constant maintenance then the value of their life decreases somewhat. It is then that others must decide if this is something the patient could live through and still value their life or not. These imperative and powerful arguments for the right to die overrule (in some extreme cases) the lack of autonomy and consent in non-voluntary euthanasia, or at the very least need to be considered more.

Conversely, there are many more arguments against non-voluntary euthanasia, all of which are valid but are not enough to say it is morally unjustified in all circumstances. They only prove that this form of euthanasia can be pragmatically problematic and so deserves vigilant attention when deliberating if this option is the best for that patient. Many argue that the lack of autonomy and consent from the individual that this act primarily concerns, makes it difficult or even impossible to ever permit non-voluntary. Even in advance directives there are some faults. There can be situations in which the patient may not remember (they developed dementia or Alzheimer’s for example) signing an advance decision agreeing to euthanasia. In this case, their critical interests are to be ignored in order to respect their new interests, even if they are impaired. This demonstrates how interests can change depending on the person’s life experiences. One cannot tell if a person can live happily in an injured or impaired state and so it is almost patronising to think a family could allow euthanasia on a person who could live on happily despite their health issues. “The commonest and most serious form of abuse of any euthanasia law would be the endangering or the actual taking of the lives of some…terminally ill or disadvantaged groups of the sick or disabled who did not want their lives taken.” (Pollard 1999, paragraph 5). There are also many empirical ‘slippery slope’ arguments that claim that there is too much risk of non-voluntary euthanasia becoming more common for wrong reasons; some family members do not want to be burdened by the patient in question financially or otherwise, unprofessional doctors may want to relieve the NHS of costs or require more organ donations and so on. It is also argued that if non-voluntary is morally justifiable because it is part of a doctor’s obligation to decide when a life is not worth living then involuntary euthanasia may also be accepted on the same grounds. If these acts became more frequent, they could desensitise society in the ending of life, thus breaking a taboo which could be socially dangerous. These extreme possible scenarios only confirm that this form of euthanasia should be met with rigid rules and procedures. Arguably, these slippery slope arguments are just paranoid judgements which contain no actual evidence and so does not conclude that it is immoral or unjustifiable to put into practice only that it is challenging to do so. It seems “any instance of (non-voluntary euthanasia) is a case in practice of 'the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limits of its logic'.” (Pollard 1999, last paragraph).

Most instances of passive euthanasia without the patient’s contemporaneous consent is morally justified as it is only ever performed because the patient’s family, friends and doctors believe it is the best option for that individual in their given condition. In order to avoid occasions of unethical non-voluntary euthanasia, there must be a sufficient regulatory system put in place to safeguard the vulnerable from malicious or callous behaviour of others that would lead to unethical killings. Despite there being no consent given, the protection of the person’s dignity and the alleviation of  their suffering (both physical and mental) are so morally significant that non-voluntary euthanasia can be certainly justified and should be viewed as a humane way to die rather than murderous or immoral.

 xx

Bibliography

J. David Velleman, A Right of Self-Termination- Ethics (Vol. 109, No. 3), published by The University of Chicago Press (1999), pages 627, 613.  

Andrew Pickin, Is non-voluntary euthanasia ever morally permissible?-Essays from my Philosophy BA, pdf posted onto andrewpickin.com (29^th December 2011), paragraph 6, http://www.andrewpickin.com/uploads/Is_nonvoluntary_euthanasia_ever_morally_permissible.pdf.

Len Doyal, Dignity in dying should include the legalization of non-voluntary euthanasia from Clinical Ethics (Vol. 1 No. 2), article posted onto researchgate.net (2006), page 65, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Len_Doyal/publication/239321759_Dignity_in_dying_should_include_the_legalization_of_nonvoluntary_euthanasia/links/540ede1b0cf2d8daaace920f.pdf.

Dr. Brian Pollard, Non-Voluntary Euthanasia, article posted onto catholiceducation.org, copyright of NSW Right to Life Association (1999), paragraph 5, last paragraph,

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/non-voluntary-euthanasia.html.

Feminism and the tampon tax- an analysis

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my second year at University of Birmingham©]

Feminism has re-emerged itself as a highly talked about ideology in recent times with the aid of social media, with liberal, socialist and radical feminist voices dominating modern feminism. The ‘tampon tax’ became an extremely publicised feminist issue in the UK even though debating to remove VAT from an ordinary item is not usually considered specific to any certain ideology. One can only surmise that this could be because of how the mostly male dominated personnel within the state views female consumerism in our capitalist country. Marxist feminism explains how a capitalist state can produce gendered inequalities which negatively impacts women in particular because of our patriarchal society, and thus why women are affected most by austerity.

There are many tax exempt items and services in the UK ranging from baby wear to insurance. Under EU rules, feminine hygiene products had a 5% VAT rate. However, recently David Cameron managed to secure an agreement in order for the British government to change this. Previous to this, these products were considered a ‘luxury item’ which many people, especially feminists, argued was highly “illogical and overtly sexist” (Coryton 2016, paragraph 5). The added VAT on these essential health items made them more expensive and thus more difficult for the poorest women in society (as well as the homeless) to acquire these products. This hypocrisy was highlighted in the campaign letter, “sanitary products should join your list of essential, tax exempt products, which include ‘helicopters’, ‘alcoholic jellies’ and ‘exotic meats including crocodile and kangaroo’” (Coryton date unknown, paragraph 6). Without a doubt, the items listed are products only sourced and desired by the rich bourgeoisie whereas vital healthcare products were merely overlooked. The historical exclusion of women in politics meant that half the population were underrepresented in decisions over legislation, and the effects of this are noticeable in this issue. “Implementing a tax that explicitly penalises an already marginalised demographic is bad for the world because it lessens incentives for that subsection (women and Trans men) to engage in a society where they are heavily underrepresented politically.” (Iriseinternational 2015, paragraph 4). While the UK has removed this unfair tax, most of Europe have not done the same as they are reluctant to lose the money this tax generates. In France alone, this is approximately €130 million each year. Capitalism exploits female consumerism more so as they are constantly targeted in advertisement and “psychically manipulated by the mass media to crave more…consumer goods, and thus power an economy that depends on constantly expanding sales.” (Willis 1970, paragraph 2). This is just one instance in which government may perpetuate gender inequality to further their capital whilst disregarding how and why austerity affects women the most.

It is paradoxical that women are expected and encouraged to spend more (female orientated products are usually more expensive) yet ideas such as the ‘glass ceiling’, the ‘gender pay gap’ and ‘austerity affecting “lone mothers, single women pensioners and single women without children” (Pearson and Elson 2015, part 1) the most’ still remain. Marxist and socialist feminism would argue this is because the state, in its contemporary form, is not only capitalist but historically entirely patriarchal in its ideology. As this historical marginalisation and manipulation of women in society is still rife within modern capitalism, so too is the exploitation and control of female consumers due to this lingering inequality from the past to the present. There will always be a consistently high demand for sanitary products as it fulfils a basic feminine need thus making it easily exploitable by our patriarchal and capitalist state. This deeply inbuilt and embedded male orientated take on profit and capitalism is beneficial to the economy but at the price of further oppressing an already biased system and can be regarded in this case as sexist. Understandably, austerity hits women the worst because of these structural inequalities, “The problem…is not only that women…are disproportionately affected by the cuts in public expenditure, but rather that the economy is a ‘gendered structure’.”(Brah, Szeman and Gedalof 2015, part 2). This means “the economy is intrinsically gendered across the three spheres of finance, production and reproduction…the sphere of reproduction is often left out in discussions of the impact of austerity.” (Brah, Szeman and Gedalof 2015, part 2). Some types of socialist feminists even argue that the “root of the problem is not just a patriarchal system but also a capitalist system that behind the scenes generates violence against women…a consequence of the neoliberal capitalist regime.” (Brenner 2014, p41). The resulting unequal distribution of privilege and power within capitalism means that women, especially those of ethnic origins, are at a disadvantage. Although austerity is said to have ended in 2015, the Treasury have proposed an extension period to last until 2018. This directly and negatively impacts women the most, as Caroline Lucas states “freezing child benefit, tax credits, and lowering the household cap on benefits will further cement women’s poverty–especially as there was no commitment to instate a living wage.” (Gayle quoting Lucas 2015, paragraph 12). It seems undeniable that modern capitalism and patriarchy have impacted women undesirably in innumerable ways however, some suggest that the ‘Stop Taxing our Periods’ campaign was not one of them but a product of restless privileged women wanting something ‘idle’ to unite against.

Some have argued that the tampon tax was a “pointless crusade (which epitomised) the problems of modern feminism, which views everything that ever happens as a conspiracy against women” (Hartley-Brewer 2015, paragraph 1). She and others contended that not only did the tax not actually amount to enough to lament over, but that many ‘male orientated products’ are still taxed as well as other essential goods for the use of everyone such as soap, toothpaste and toilet roll. Nevertheless, this argument fails to recognise the social change ending this tax brought about by only emphasising it in economic terms. Liberal feminists maintain that not only is it a human right for females to have, but abolishing the tax was acknowledging that it was unfair and the result of inequalities in how the state views women and their concerns. There are no products that are both essential and only for the use of men; razors (the closest equivalent) are zero rated and are on average less expensive. The strangely ‘controversial’ debate surrounding this tax was fundamentally about how females are still at times devalued and underrepresented in government and politics. There are many feminist, egalitarian manifestos and stratagems aimed towards the furtherance of women and “until such a feminist economic strategy with gender and social equality at its heart is ensured, there will be no recovery for women.” (Pearson and Elson 2015, part 13).

Once women are adequately represented within government, legislation will consequently reflect their concerns. There are many different economic strategies that specifically safeguard women’s rights and opportunities. These feminist approaches need to be encouraged and considered more in what is an already systemically entrenched patriarchal and uncompromisingly exploitative capitalist state, that easily overlooks this particular group’s interests at times. Both Marxist and socialist feminism explain why austerity affects this section of society the harshest as well as inform on the debate surrounding the tampon tax. They illuminate the concepts of historical and structural prejudicial classism within patriarchy that can often lead to sexist capitalist ramifications for women. These, if not given specific limitations, can result in the disregard of female civil rights whilst also severely impacting their socioeconomic standing as well as their political voice.

xx

Bibliography

Laura Coryton, What It Really Means to End the Tampon Tax, posted onto thehuffingtonpost.co.uk (21^st March 2016), paragraph 5, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/laura-coryton/tampon-tax_b_9516794.html.

Laura Coryton, Stop taxing periods. Period, campaign posted onto change.org (date unknown), paragraph 6, https://www.change.org/p/george-osborne-stop-taxing-periods-period.

Iriseinternational, Why taxing tampons is bad for the world-Menstruation Matters, Sexual & Reproductive health and rights, posted onto girlsglobe.org (30^th November 2015), paragraph 4, http://girlsglobe.org/2015/11/30/why-taxing-tampons-is-bad-for-the-world/.

Ellen Willis, Women and the Myth of Consumerism (Vol. 8, No. 12), produced by unz.org in Ramparts Magazine (1970), paragraph 2. 

Ruth Pearson and Diane Elson, transcending the impact of the financial crisis in the United Kingdom: towards plan F—a feminist economic strategy, journal in Feminist Review, published by Palgrave Macmillan (2015), part 1.

Avtar Brah, Ioana Szeman and Irene Gedalof, feminism and the politics of austerity, journal in Feminist Review, published by Palgrave Macmillan (2015), part 2.

Johanna Brenner, 21^st Century Socialist-feminism, article published in The Journal of the Society for Socialist Studies (2010), p41, http://www.socialiststudies.com/index.php/sss/article/viewFile/23486/17371.

Julia Hartley-Brewer, The campaign to end VAT on tampons is one of the silliest the sisterhood has ever mounted, article published by telegraph.co.uk (27^th October 2015), paragraph 1, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11957498/The-campaign-to-end-VAT-on-tampons-is-one-of-the-silliest-the-sisterhood-has-ever-mounted.html.

Damien Gayle, Women disproportionately affected by austerity, charities warn, article published by theguardian.com (28^th May 2015), paragraph 12, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/28/women-austerity-charities-cuts-gender-inequality

Should we be morally opposed to prostitution?

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my second year at University of Birmingham©]

I am arguing from the liberal perspective that prostitution should not be morally opposed, against the radical feminist arguments (focusing closely on Laurie Shrage's argument) that regard the business as immoral. The main focus will be analysing a feminist position against prostitution in the contemporary age. The opinion that prostitutes and prostitution is immoral is flawed as it is the perpetual demand (the clientele) that encourages this supply of services in the first place. The major weakness of this feminist argument is that it neglects liberal ideas of consent and autonomy.

Laurie Shrage argues from a radical feminist perspective and believes that there are four particular “beliefs and values which structure the social meaning of the prostitute's business in our culture-principles which are not necessarily consciously held by us but are implicit in our observable behavior and social practice” (Shrage 1989,p352). The most acceptable of these is “people in our society generally believe that human beings naturally possess, but socially repress, powerful, emotionally destabilizing sexual appetites” and that “we assume that a person's sexual practice renders her or  him a particular ‘kind’ of  person, for example, "a homosexual," "a bisexual," "a whore," "a virgin," "a pervert,"” (Shrage 1989, p352). The first statement may not be provable, but stems from widely believed Freudian thought. This ‘libido’ is a biological and “powerful natural instinct, which (Freud) believed manifests itself as early as infancy” (Shrage 1989, p353) but is often repressed so to avoid being ‘abnormal’ or ‘perverted’ to others in society. Schopenhauer accurately describes, “The sexual impulse…shows itself the strongest and most powerful of motives (and) is the ultimate goal of almost all human effort…” (Schopenhauer edited by Durant 1928, p333). The second statement is supported by the need for many people in society to label others in certain categories to define their personality. The difference between these example labels is that they are tautologies except for the ambiguous terms ‘whore’ and ‘pervert’ which are used subjectively. “Some scholars have argued that sexual orientation may be an equally important social category (as well as other sexually descriptive labels): a master status, or a critical personal characteristic that provides a lens through which people interact with an individual.” (Johnson, Gill, et al 2007, p321). In these ways, women can be considered sexual objects that satisfy the natural, expected and insuppressible libidos of others, whilst also being negatively labelled by society as licentious or indecent. This establishes how prostitution can be oppressive to women and so should be morally opposed. However, this labeling goes beyond sexuality and is utilized to describe positive and negative aspects; a prostitute can also be considered resilient, a businesswomen, or just as a sex worker (no other implication). With increasing liberal attitudes towards sex, people are encouraged to cease the labeling as society has grown weary of damaging stereotypes which makes many “incapable of perceiving (people) independently of that label.” (Alter 2010, paragraph 4).  Prostitution has become more acceptable without negative inferences and is considered a job for any gender (Shrage wrongly leaves out male and transgender workers in her opposition), showing how Shrage’s argument is not as convincing in the open-minded present day, whilst her other two points of ‘shared social beliefs’ are weak and implausible.

Shrage claims that “we assume that men are naturally suited for dominant social roles (and)… we assume that contact with male genitals in virtually all contexts is damaging and polluting to women.” (Shrage 1989, p352). Because of the mostly male clientele, it is “Implicit in this particular division of labor (that there is a)…cultural principle that men are naturally disposed to dominate in their relations with others.” (Shrage 1989, p354). This explicates how “The exploitation of female sexuality is a ruling-class privilege, an advantage which allows those socially identified as ‘men’ to perpetuate their economic and cultural hegemony.” (Shrage 1989, p354). Shrage argues “a history of sexual activity is a negative mark that is used to differentiate kinds of women. Instead of being valued for their experience in sexual matters, women are valued for their ‘innocence’” and that intercourse is seen as corrupting a woman, “Women are split, penetrated, entered, occupied, invaded, and colonized by men.” (Shrage paraphrasing Andrea Dworkin 1989, p355-356). In her view, these reasons show that tolerating this industry is oppressing women by the tacit acceptance of exploitation of the unequal roles females have had in the past. This encourages the ‘social subordination’ of women, thus why we should morally oppose prostitution. However, she wrongly infers that tolerance is the same as acceptance, incorrect by its very definition. This is criticized by many liberals as exacerbating the preconception that women are not in control of their own bodies whilst encouraging a patronizing paternalism of what women should and should not do. Igor Primoratz disagrees with her points as male dominance is “no longer accepted quite as widely as it used to be a couple of decades ago (and) the latter is not generally accepted in our society today. The evidence Shrage brings up to show that it is far from compelling.” (Primoratz 1993, p179). Thus, Shrage falsely makes largely outdated assumptions about society’s values with no real evidence, so her argument “does not go as far as (she) means it to.” (Primoratz 1993, p178).

The most persuasive and unrestrictive approach is Primoratz’s liberal argument in defence of prostitution. When a competent adult has freely made the decision to sell sexual services, this decision is made with thoughtful consent and should not be condemned as immoral. Preventing this decision to be made and performed on the grounds of possible hazards to the person, who is able to understand and acknowledge the risks involved, is unacceptable paternalism because of its unfounded condescension. On this basis, many “refuse to acknowledge the moral credentials of paternalism (because it) is merely…prudential (and) not a moral argument against prostitution.” (Primoratz 1993, p162). In addition to this, he draws on Alan Goldman’s view of ‘plain sex’ which opposes the idea that all sex should be romantic on the grounds that this is only a “personal ideal, not a universally binding moral standard.”(Primoratz 1993, p170). If this were universal, everyone would morally oppose casual sexual relationships, as is not the case with most modern attitudes nowadays, thus prostitution should be viewed the same way. Prostitution is considered by some feminists as the degradation of women by exploiting them for economic gain, however Primoratz maintains that it is not “morally unobjectionable in itself” (Primoratz 1993, p171). It is the idea that the “sale of sex is just another service, in itself as legitimate as any other and not to be interfered with as long as no injustice, exploitation or fraud is involved” (Primoratz 1993, p171). Many liberal feminists agree that prostitution should not be morally opposed as every woman has the right to full autonomy over her body, without restriction or judgement. They “adopt a libertarian or public health approach regarding commercial sexual activity. Thus many…reject calls to criminalize or…condemn prostitution and pornography when those who participate in their manufacture and consumption do so without coercion. They defend this position by citing privacy but also by invoking the inherent value of autonomous choice.” (Sample date unknown, p334). Personal autonomy and consent are the main reasons why liberal feminists do not morally oppose prostitution. “Sex work can be very profitable for women, and many women may enjoy work that allows them to creatively express their sexuality…The sex work industry and its workers need not be chastised by a society that clings to puritan ideals of what is ‘moral’.” (Bell 2009, p1). She argues that many enjoy their work and that society should “view the prostitute as an entertainer (who) provide(s) a pleasurable experience for a customer.” (Bell 2009, p1) as they would with any other profession in entertainment as all are paid for their labour, not their product. Therefore, the opinion that prostitution should not be morally opposed is logical and coherent.

Shrage’s moral opposition is not cogent enough and fails to include male and transgender workers and so lacks overall credibility to oppose all of prostitution. Women are often paid more and receive more work than others, which can show prostitution to be most beneficial to this particular gender. The patronising paternalism surrounding the debate to oppose prostitution has no evidentiary foundation and inhibits people’s freedom based on a kind of ‘parental opinion’ which goes against consent and autonomy. In a way, all professions objectify one’s personal skills through their body and or mind. Prostitution (when under no force or manipulation) is just another job, especially safe, organised and professional escort companies which maintains the protection and rights of their workers. Opposing prostitution and not actually calling for criminalization like Shrage (and many other feminists) does nothing more than idly condemn, encourage stigma and the subordination of sex workers in society. 

xx

Bibliography

Laurie Shrage, Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution, published by University of Chicago Press (1989), p352, p353, p354, p355-356.

Arthur Schopenhauer, The Metaphysics of the Love of the Sexes, in The Works of Schopenhauer, edited by Will Durant, published by New York: Simon & Schuster (1928), p333.

Kerri L. Johnson, Simone Gill, Victoria Reichman and Louis G. Tassinary, Swagger, Sway, and Sexuality: Judging Sexual Orientation From Body Motion and Morphology (Attitudes and Social Cognition), in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (2007), p321.

Adam Alter, Why It's Dangerous to Label People, posted onto Psychology Today (May 17^th 2010), paragraph 4, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/alternative-truths/201005/why-its-dangerous-label-people.

Igor Primoratz, What's Wrong with Prostitution?-Ethics and Sex (Vol. 68, No. 264pp 159-182), published by Cambridge University Press (1993), p178, p179, p162, p170, p171.

Ruth Sample, Feminism, Liberal, pdf posted onto blogs.helsinki.fi (date unknown), p334, http://blogs.helsinki.fi/seksuaalietiikka2011/files/2010/10/9-Liberal-Feminism.pdf. 

Kelly J. Bell, A Feminist's Argument On How Sex Work Can Benefit Women(Vol. 1 No. 11),blog posted onto studentpulse.com (2009), p1 paragraph 2, paragraph 7, http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/28/a-feminists-argument-on-how-sex-work-can-benefit-women. 

How has American film constructed ‘terrorism’ and the ‘Other’?

[This blog post is an edited essay of mine from my second year at University of Birmingham©]

In light of the controversial reviews 'American Sniper' got for its supposed 'propaganda'- How far is this true of how American film portrays the other? 

The ‘other’ or Orientalism, is the exaggerated and romanticised view of the East (specifically the Middle East for this essay) as a wholly different, otherworldly and exotic land that alienates and separates the East from the West. American film has commonly constructed ‘terrorism’ as the ‘other’ but also at times, as themselves. I will demonstrate how American film shows how the two terms coincide such as in ‘Three Kings’, however I will argue that overall they do not always correlate by also using ‘Three Kings’, ‘Casablanca’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ to evidence this. I will argue that race or ethnicity greatly affects the portrayal of terrorism and that the general motif of Hollywood American film is to present themselves as the ultimate heroes, yet they can also admit their faults by sometimes demonstrating how the West can represent the menacing terrorist force as well. A common theme throughout American film is to juxtapose the ‘other’ and terrorism, increasingly seen in contemporary film.

The 1999 film ‘Three Kings’ is entirely an American insider’s perspective. All ‘Arabs’ in the film are portrayed as ‘exotic’ by the way they are coloured, fairly unkempt and dressed in traditional robes and garments or rags. They are also depicted as the ‘other’ from the very start by the use of derogatory terms by the U.S soldiers such as “rag-head”, “camel-jockey”, “towel-heads” (Russell 1999). The Arabs have been established as the foreign enemy or opposition here and are cast off as the ‘other’ while the American soldiers are lifted up as the heroes, “we liberated Kuwait” (Russell 1999) is exclaimed in their celebrations after the war. The opinion that America has a “‘righteous duty’ to intervene in other countries’ governments and policies” (Kitaeff 2003, paragraph 1) is a strongly held perspective throughout the film as they are always represented as authoritative, superior and valiant. The local Kuwaiti’s exclaim “it’s safe now” (Russell 1999) when the American’s arrive. The Kuwaiti’s are shown to be vulnerable and pleading, “don’t leave!” (Russell 1999), so the Americans take pity on them and give out aid packages whilst “Images showing grieving women and relying on pathos are common ways of creating ‘others’.” (Kitaeff 2003, side note no.6). Saddam’s army blow up the milk truck in order to starve out the rebel Arabs, which reinforces that they are the real threatening terrorists in the film. The “Iraqi soldiers brutally beat children. Civilians are often depicted as dominated and incapable of acting on their own without U.S. help.” (Kitaeff 2003, side note no.7). This gives the impression that overall this American intervention was for liberal and humanitarian reasons as in the end, the three soldiers help the refugees cross the border. Nevertheless, these soldiers were disobeying the orders given to them by the U.S army in this final act, showing how the U.S and their motives were ultimately wrong. The film changes the Arab’s representation by giving them a voice, showing them to be similar to westerners and are not always the main source of terrorism but are the victims of their unstable environment and greedy foreign intervention.

Although the American soldiers seem to be the heroes and remain in control throughout the film, they are presented in a negative light by questioning whether their intentions behind intervention were actually for greed and power rather than for moral reasons. The first scene depicts the character Troy callously shooting an Iraqi soldier. The graphic nature of the close up shot shows how violently the soldier died from the bullet, making the Arab seem passive and the American appear powerful and aggressive. The soldiers appear to have no remorse and show no deep emotion, but instead take pride in shooting an Arab, “you shot yourself a rag-head” (Russell 1999), which is followed by a soldier taking a picture of the dead soldier’s body. The U.S soldiers are depicted as drunken and boisterous during their celebrations for being successful in the war, however it seems inappropriate and insensitive to be rejoicing so soon after blood-shed and terror. There are points of subtle reflection in the film that question America’s involvement and morality, “What did we do here?” (Russell 1999), the protagonist outlaw hero asks, disillusioned by their perceived ‘humanitarian intervention’. The reporter (representing general American media) momentarily cries out at the horrific sight of oil soaked birds as a result of warfare but then changes quickly to hyperbolic comedic sadness. This could represent America’s fake sense of remorse for the ‘other’ in media as brief sensationalised penitence. The reporter also displays America’s one-sided and blinkered perspective when she talks of liberating Kuwait on camera as the Kuwaiti refugees are still being terrorised throughout the film. Through the U.S soldiers’ brash, forceful and selfish presentation, they begin to look more like the terrorists ‘invading’ instead of intervening. The three soldiers intend on stealing Kuwaiti gold that was stolen by the Iraqi terrorists, which shows there is a strong similarity in greed between the two (thieves stealing from thieves). Even though they have a change of heart and give the gold back, they have to bribe their own army to help the refugees cross the border by giving them over some gold as the army sergeant argues that “we are not involved in this problem” (Russell 1999). Quite often there are contradictions between America staying out of issues not pertaining to them and getting involved in order to gain something out of it. This shows how the U.S’s intentions were always for greed. Their true motives are highlighted when the Arab interrogator symbolically pours oil down his American prisoner’s throat, as if to give him what the Americans came for all along. The ‘other’ is given a voice when the interrogator explains to his prisoner (and the audience) their perspective. He mocks the view that the “big army of democracy beats the ugly dictator and saves the rich Kuwaitis” and shouts “your sick…country make the black man hate himself” (Russell 1999). This is to explain how the U.S alienate ‘outsiders’ and praise themselves for doing good when that is not always the opinion held on the other end. He even questions, “Do your army care about the children in Iraq?” (Russell 1999) because of the violence they inflict to the inhabitants in their involvement. The soldiers begin to look more like each other as not only did they share a dislike for each other’s side, but are also family men. This is also done when a U.S soldier prays alongside the refugees when they are in hiding, symbolising shared feelings of faith and hope. We empathise with the terrorist when he describes his family being bombed and become more sympathetic toward not only the refugees, but the ‘enemy’. With influence from real refugees as advisors for the film, the Arabs are humanised by giving them a voice as well as lending the film verisimilitude and authenticity of character. The cynical view of the Gulf war is reinforced with the reporter’s line “what was this war about?” (Russell 1999), emphasising American’s disillusionment and failures, thus it “deviate(s) from a typical Hollywood film in its basic message and structure” (Kitaeff 2003, part 2). However, the film’s redeeming of America with their three ‘anti-heroes’ and resulting happy ending seems to belittle the fact that the U.S.A have committed terrorist crimes just like the ‘other’. Other films have presented the West as the terrorists but they are always depicted very differently to Middle Eastern terrorists because of their shared racial background (not being the ‘other’).

The 1942 film ‘Casablanca’ is a political morality play from an American perspective, focusing on the relationship between them and Europe. The protagonist Rick and his café represent ‘logical’ and ‘neutral’ America, “idealizing the deeds of the West in the way it champions the plot featuring Rick. It is the voice of the West/ Rick/ America that exclusively dominates the entire narrative.”(Bouguerba 2012, p3). There are many different cultures as ‘others’ in the film and are usually seen in Rick’s café, possibly representing America as diverse, however this is not central to the film as the exotic middle eastern setting is merely used as a backdrop to the Western issues involved. However, it is clear that “The dogmatic act of narrating and representing Morocco may be imbued with an innermost desire to devalue and disparage all things Oriental and Moroccan.” (Bouguerba 2012, p2). This is another instance where America is given a superior status in their film. The terrorists in this film are from the west, primarily German. In contrast to the Arab terrorists from ‘Three Kings’, these ‘white’ terrorists are portrayed as rich, educated, powerful and influential. They wear expensive suits and speak of capitalism as a form of gaining power, “human life is cheap” (Curtiz 1942) says Major Strasser (representing Germany). It is unavoidable that western terrorists are represented in a different light to how Eastern terrorists are characterised, also evidenced through the 2008 film ‘The Dark Knight’. Not only are they considered somewhat more elite than Eastern terrorists but are given more understanding and explanation than that of terrorists from ‘other cultures’. The Joker is a western terrorist and represents terrorism in the U.S post 9/11, but also the chaos and threat that anarchism presents to democratic America. The Joker personifies anarchist extremism within liberal western culture as more people become dissatisfied with government policy, showing how terrorism can come from within their own country. “Batman is a stand-in for George W. Bush himself, who suffered criticism for the tactics his administration used to keep America safe.” (Gittell 2012, paragraph 3), as well as representing America as the highly technologically developed, luxuriously rich and not always popular world police. Batman encapsulates America’s idolised perception of themselves as ultimate moral heroes. The Joker is depicted as a mentally unstable “schizophrenic clown” (Harwood quoting Byrne 2009, paragraph 4). As this terrorist “is as crazy as they say” (Nolan 2008), his lunacy lends explanation and thus some understanding for his crimes. It is almost as if this terrorist cannot help himself as he is a victim of his own insanity. The general western attitude is that “White terrorists are ‘troubled loners.’ Other terrorists are always suspected of being part of a global plot, even when they are obviously troubled loners…White terrorists are never called ‘white.’ But other terrorists are given ethnic affiliations…White terrorists are alcoholics, addicts or mentally ill. Other terrorists are apparently clean-living and perfectly sane.” (Cole 2015, points 2, 7, 9). American film presents ‘western terrorism’ as either just enemy soldiers fighting for their ideals or a deranged random threat, all never labelled as terrorism, however terrorism made up of the ‘other’ is given a more dirty, brutish and barbaric status with not much explanation of their perspective.

From the films mentioned, general mainstream American film seems to consistently use heroic imagery and speech in depicting themselves in order to popularise the film to their largely American audience through patriotism. Even in popular T.V series like 'Homeland' shed a negative light on different cultures to some extent. Nevertheless, their own political mistakes are sometimes shown in film but usually in a subtle and unoffending way. ‘The exotic’ is usually portrayed as alien or romanticised to reinforce the roles and expectations the West have about the ‘other’. This also enhances the setting and atmosphere of the film in order to actualise its Hollywood potential. The construction of ‘terrorism’ differs between their ethnicity. When the threat is from the West, there are subtle reasons given behind their actions without taking away from any ‘scare factor’. Yet when the danger is from the ‘other’, American film tends to alienate and isolate them as ‘terrorists’, thus deeming them more menacing because they are considered ‘different’ and this is concerning (stemming from the fear of the unknown). Their perspective is naturally not often given as the films are from an insider’s viewpoint but this only strengthens western prejudices against those of other ethnicities. This shows how American media (even through film) can use propaganda and fear through exciting plot-lines to further their own negative beliefs about the ‘other’.

xx

Bibliography

Three Kings (1999) directed by David O. Russell, produced and distributed by Warner Bros.

Lila Kitaeff, Three Kings: neocolonial Arab representation, published in Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media No. 46 (2003), paragraph 1, side note no.6, side note no.7, part 2 paragraph 1.   

Tarik Bouguerba, Casablanca between American and European Orientalisms, posted onto scribd.com (22^nd September 2012), p3, p2, http://www.scribd.com/doc/106675559/casablanca-between-American-and-European-Orientalisms. 

Casablanca (1942) directed by Michael Curtiz, produced and distributed by Warner Bros.

Noah Gittell, The Hero We Need: An In-Depth Analysis of Batman in Post-9/11 America posted onto Reelchange.net (6^th July 2012), paragraph 3, http://reelchange.net/2012/07/06/the-hero-we-need-an-in-depth-analysis-of-batman-as-post-911-america/.

Jonathon Harwood quoting Dr. Peter Byrne, Ledger’s Joker attacked for mental illness stereotype, posted onto theweek.co.uk (18^th August 2009), paragraph 4, http://www.theweek.co.uk/people-news/20431/ledger%E2%80%99s-joker-attacked-mental-illness-stereotype.

The Dark Knight (2008) directed by Christopher Nolan, produced by Warner Bros., Legendary Pictures, Syncopy Inc. and DC Comics.

Juan Cole, Top Ten differences between White Terrorists and Others, from informed comment-Thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion, posted onto juancole.com (28^th November 2015), points 2,7,9, http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/differences-between-terrorists.html.