Exposure 119

Issue 119 Autumn 2015 special

Editorial Hackney has always been a borough of immense diversity and extremes. One part is rich. One part is poor. There are areas known for violence, and there are areas where some of London’s most expensive homes can be bought. There’s the vibrant nightlife of Shoreditch and the cultural melting pot of Brick Lane.

But one thing that ties Hackney together is its creativity.

Exposure spent time with lots of young people from this great borough to find out what makes them tick. Should drugs be legalised? Are we addicted to our phones? Why do we still label women as sluts? Should kids with ADHD be medicated? Contained within these pages are some of the most thought provoking pieces from an excellent bunch of east London’s finest youngsters. You can read more on our website.

www.exposure.org.uk Exposure is an award winning youth communications enterprise. If you are considering a creative or media based career then get involved. Gain confidence, skills, know-how, contacts and experience to succeed in the media, visual arts, film and web-based industries.

Complete the Exposure media award, and start your career with us now.

Or don’t!

More details call 020 8883 0260 or email info@exposure.org.uk

Exposure is a registered trademark of Exposure Organisation Limited, registered in England no. 03455480, registered charity no. 1073922. The views expressed by young people in Exposure do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher or its funders. (c) 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1362-8585

Contributors

Meena Sears

Otto Nuki

Vanya Chulkou

Robbie McGrail

Antonella Longo

Don Hollingsworth

Alessandra Controne

John Boyce

Other contributions from: John Barrow Queenie Qureshi-Wales Hector O’Shea Zarina Macha Chantay Okunowo-Adedeji Sam Knight Jonah Froggatt Joseph Husband

Special thanks to Hackney Giving for funding this project. Thank you to students from Stoke Newington School and Mossbourne Academy, and all the people of Hackney who volunteered their opinions, ideas and services to make this magazine possible.

Abadur Ebz Rahman

Boys will be boys; girls will be ‘slappers’ says Meena Sears Slut! Slapper! You hear these words casually thrown around the school playground by boys and girls every day. Yet each insult is aimed at one type of victim each time: females.

Can you think of a single instance in your life where you’ve heard a boy being shamed for promiscuity? In fact, I challenge you to come up with at least two derogatory terms used to criticise men who ‘sleep around’ – or even point to casual sexuality in men as a negative thing. I’ll be impressed if you find such a term.

‘Slut shaming’ has existed for thousands of years.

Cleopatra (30 BC), for example, is one of the most famous ‘sluts’ in history. Augustus Caeser, the first emperor of Rome, launched a campaign of propaganda 2,000 years ago against the Egyptian queen based on her sexual relationships.

The earliest record of the word was in 1402, when Hoccleve, an English poet and clerk, referred to his ex-girlfriend as ‘the foulest slutte of al a tovne’ (the foulest slut of all the town). It was a

I was ten the first time I heard it. There was a girl in my class being shamed for wearing a padded bra; according to all the other girls she was a ‘slut’.

What we didn’t know is how hard it is to find a bra without padding. This was just the beginning. The naming and shaming fast-accelerated and became more severe as we all went through puberty. We started identifying each other as sexual beings, and we were all guilty of making judgements it was not our business to make.

Now, when a girl and a boy are having sex, it’s not long until the whole school knows. The girl is degraded and humiliated. She is no longer respected by boys; she is made to feel guilty and, worst of all, she is now branded by an offensive nickname, like some sort of tag around her neck.

The boy, on the other hand? In my experience he’s sometimes just left alone. But more often, he gets a high-five. His gender has protected him against this form of bullying, and yet he has done the same thing as the girl.

Is this the best way to start our adult lives? Why should these stereotypes define who we are as we grow older? How can we hope to move towards true gender equality if we buy into the prejudices we have inherited from history – even if only on a linguistic, ‘jokey’ level?

When I go to school, I feel safe with the knowledge

“Cleopatra (30 BC), for example, is one of the most famous ‘sluts’ in history” common phrase by 1839 and Charles Dickens had, in his classic ‘Nicholas Nickleby’, had one of his characters say, “Never let anybody who is a friend of mine speak to her; a slut, a hussy.”

Now it’s bandied about everywhere - especially, it seems, among our generation, mostly ironically, as a joke, some would argue. But I don’t think our society has moved on enough, from these age-old attitudes towards female sexuality, to make this acceptable.

that I will not be judged by the colour of my skin.

When I go to school, I feel safe in the knowledge that I will not be discriminated against due to my sexuality. Yet, as a girl, if I went to school with a somewhat ‘colourful sexual history’, I would not feel safe; I would not feel comfortable.

I would feel humiliated. I would feel trapped by an unjust, degrading, hateful slogan: slut.

Meena

My 7-year-old brother was prescribed with Ritalin says Otto Nuki My brother was diagnosed with ADHD at the age of seven. Now, aged 19, he’s doing well at a highly respected university. He worked hard, it paid off, and I give him full credit for that – but he struggles to congratulate himself.

A decision was made for him early on – with good intentions – that has compromised his self-confidence and self-assurance ever since.

As soon as the diagnosis came through, he was put on Ritalin, a central nervous system stimulant that controls behaviour and attention. Each tablet wears off after just a few hours, so they need to be taken regularly – making them highly addictive.

As a result of on-and-off use for most of his life, my brother is now dependent, and probably will be forever.

success that he is having now. The decision was made for him, to safeguard his future – but how can anyone predict what will happen at the age of seven?

Exams are a way to test your intelligence and your ambition. It’s not about how calm you are. If he had learned how to concentrate by himself, without the influence of medication, I truly believe he’d be doing just as well now. And even if he’d struggled, was it worth the risk that Ritalin’s side effects still pose to the rest of his life?

Grades or no grades – what right do we have to decide that the way someone’s brain works is ‘faulty’? ADHD is a personality trait as much as it is an illness. Like other personality traits, it causes some problems, and needs to be monitored. But if you repress the illness, you repress the person as well.

I get on really well with my brother, we’re mates.

I can go to him about anything. But I could always do that – even when he wasn’t dependent on Ritalin, when I was talking to the real ‘him’, not the drugged up version.

“What right do we have to decide that the way someone’s brain works is ‘faulty’?”

As you can imagine, the NHS officially advises that Ritalin should only be used to treat ADHD as a last resort. On top of the dependency issue, Ritalin is associated with a plethora of nasty side effects, ranging from nervousness and insomnia, through to aggression and dizziness, and sometimes even psychotic disorders and hallucinations. It’s not a decision to be taken lightly, especially for someone so young.

This huge decision was made for him – which I think is primarily unfair. At 16 or so, he could have made an informed decision for himself, and he could have given his full consent. He would have been in a position to understand what was going to happen to him.

But he was rushed into taking Ritalin a lot earlier to allow him to do well at school, and to enjoy the

Everyone’s different. But society has used the idea of a ‘beautiful personality’ as someone that doesn’t have ADHD, and that’s where the problem lies.

There is no right way to be born. There’s the way you are versus the way society says you should be.

If you’re not, well there’s a drug for that.

This mindset is intrinsic to how young people are treated, especially in school. For example, we’re told to take subjects that we don’t want to – it’s not being put on drugs, but it’s still having our future’s altered for us. It just seems that young people are being told what’s ‘wrong’ rather than what’s right.

So why can’t we see the positives? Why can’t we accept each other for who we are? What’s the worst that could happen if we were left to be ourselves? Or rather – since we’re talking positives – what’s the best that could happen?

Otto

There’s good reason for our smartphone addiction claims Vanya Chulkov “Why can’t my teenage children leave their smartphones alone, even at the dinner table – surely Instagram can’t be that interesting?” one parent asks Frances E Jensen, professor of nuerology and author of The Teenage Brain.

How did we manage before mobile phones came along? I ask myself this all the time as I look at other young people walking through the street with eyes glued to their screens.

And then we get to school and the teachers constantly chant: “Hand over that phone – now!”

I decided that I’d had enough. I was determined to prove that my generation isn’t as dependent on

smartphones as everyone assumes. I wanted to put an end to these taunts and accusations!

My first idea was to get rid of my phone for a week and write a diary about life without it – but instantly I regreted it. No shame in taking babysteps, though… I decided a day would be more bearable.

But even this was more difficult than I could handle. My mum was away the first time I tried, so I felt I needed my phone to keep in touch with her. I tried again a week later. No Facebook, no Snapchat, no Instagram, no messages, no calling, no Twitter, no music = no life. OK, I admit, I couldn’t and can’t give up my phone.

“Since the creation of smartphones, we are able to do everything on the go – and, increasingly, we are expected to do so” Which leaves me even more concerned.

I’m not the only one. Responding to research by Deloitte on mobile phone use, the company’s Lead Telecoms Partner, Ed Marsden said, “Mobile phones have clearly become something of an addiction for many and has led to some people looking to unplug their devices and undergo a digital detox.”

The study found that 18 to 24-year-olds check their devices on average 53 times a day, and for 13% the figure is more than 100 times. Removing something that has become so essential to our lives would bring any of us out in a complete panic.

Meanwhile, 65 to 75-year-olds only check their devices 13 times a day on average, and 56% less than 10 times. Altogether much more healthy I’m sure you’ll agree. It’s not that we don’t want to put our phones down – but the figures speak for themselves. So how come older people can do it and we can’t?

It could be argued that it’s normal to rely on smartphones because we’ve grown up with the devices in our hands. To not use a smartphone is actually abnormal. Conversely over 65s have spent the majority of their life without mobile phones. They have had to forcibly change habits to incorporate new technology into their lives, and many probably don’t feel the need to.

Since the creation of smartphones, we are able to do everything on the go – and, increasingly, we are expected to do so. Emails have to be responded to instantly; messages replied to immediately; tweets to react to; Facebook posts to engage with. It’s how we interact with each other. To strip that away leaves a sense of disconnection from the world, and especially from our friends, our colleagues – those close to us.

And yet we need to make sure our generation doesn’t lose sight of its basic humanity. We need to make sure that we can interact on a physical level, where not all communication with the world around us is through a screen. We need to ensure that Hackney’s average young person can look up from their phone and recognise the streets around them, without reaching for Google maps…

Vanya

Drug laws need to catch up with society says Robbie McGrail I’ve grown up in Hackney, and though nowadays you’re more likely to see streets full of Camembert rather than cocaine, I’ve been in close proximity to drug culture all my life.

Drugs have been used and abused for thousands of years. Their influence has been mirrored in art and movements throughout modern history, from the hallucinogenic hippies of the 60s to the speedheads of the 70s and 80s. Through law, a war has been waged on these substances and the general attitude towards them is that they are perilous things; poisonous even.

street. Both drugs put a massive burden on the health service and police force but remain legal.

Amphetamine MDMA (Ecstasy), meanwhile, has been proven to help with counselling in some cases, and in some countries cannabis is prescribed to people with multiple sclerosis to help ease symptoms.

I’m not saying do these drugs, but isn’t it a contradiction to say, “these are bad and these are fine. Drink beer and smoke, but don’t get high.”

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculated 8,748 deaths came from alcohol misuse in the UK in 2011, compared to that of seven from cannabis and 12 from MDMA. Funnily enough, even cows and vending machines killed a greater number of people. Maybe we should criminalise those who eat beef burgers or who buy crisps/chocolates/ fizzy drinks?

Decriminalising or even legalising drugs could help

“Condemning illegal drugs is never going to defeat the ills that they bring, and vilifying users does little to help them” While it is impossible to doubt the influence drugs had and continue to have on the creative and intellectual output of humans, it is equally impossible to doubt the dark side that dwells within these substances. Drugs can destroy, drugs can cripple and drugs can trick people into an abyss of addiction.

So you can understand why many people’s opinion of drug culture is that it’s wrong, and will only lead to ruin. But others argue that condemning illegal drugs will never defeat the ills that they bring, and vilifying users will do little to help them.

The problems associated with drug use do not disappear because drugs are against the law or because they are taboo. And drug users will ignore the law and social conformity on the quest to reach some higher plane anyway. So, if people are going to take drugs regardless, many believe the process in which they are acquired should be made safer.

In the UK, those over 18 legally consume beer freely, and cigarettes can be bought on any high

remove lots of the dangerous aspects, and society could benefit directly from the sale of narcotics.

Removing the black market would make it safer because people would not be buying from someone they don’t know, operating outside the law.

Additionally the contents of the drugs would be assured, meaning people will know what’s in the

drug they’re buying. Plus, all sales could be taxed, which would help support our ailing economy. And the police could spend more time concentrating on other crimes.

Fundamentally, no matter how hard you enforce the law, you will never stop drugs being taken.

Like sex and rock and roll, drugs are part of youth culture. Perhaps we need to finally wake up and see that decriminalisation could lead to safer production, safer business and safer lives for young people. And, if you don’t believe me, look at Portugal. They decriminalised all drugs in 2001 and drug abuse has halved since...

Robbie

LEGAL HIGHS DRUGS

TREND TECHNOLOGY

ADHD HACKNEY IS MY EMPIRE

SEXISM

LIVING

SOCIAL MEDIA

YOUTH CULTURE

EXPRESSION YOUNG PEOPLE-FRESH IDEAS