OPINION
Thursday November 24, 2022
WALKING TO CAMPUS
OPINION TEAM
BY LAURA ROWE
LAURA ROWE EMILIA VULLIAMY
OUR BODIES ARE NOT TRENDS LAURA ROWE OPINION EDITOR (SHE/HER)
THE RETURN OF ‘heroin chic’ signifies a return to eating disorders and oppression. This article will discuss eating disorders and addiction- please read with discretion. Heroin chic was popularised in the 1990s, characterised by pale skin, dark under eyes and emancipated features. The style encouraged substance abuse to achieve a skeletal body. Unsurprisingly, many of the models struggled with addiction and eating disorders due to the pressured enforced upon them. And the perpetuation of their images to the general public led to an increase in bulimia and anorexia among the public as well. The style served to control women. The pressure to lose weight through any means possible led to extreme methods like substance
abuse. Women were exhausted and took up less physical space meaning that men were allocated yet more political and social space. This style is now being brought back. The New York Post featured a celebratory tweet welcoming heroin chic back completely ignoring the havoc it wreaked last time. This is absolutely terrifying. Actor Jameela Jamil has spoken out
“Women were exhausted and took up less physical space meaning that men were allocated more political and social space.” about it, stating that “They’re not even interested in you looking like a naturally skinny or athletic person. They want you to look like you have dark circles under your eyes, like you’re dying.” It seems to be a backlash from those that control
fashion against the body positivity movement, serving to silence feminist movements. The introduction of heroin chic seems timely: following the recent horrors of Roe v. Wade and the terrifying events occurring in Iran the trend seems to be removing yet more power from women. The female body has been treated as a fashion trend for hundreds of years: from the desired androgynous look in the 1920s, to the Brazilian butt lift trends of the 2010s. The female body has been cycled through every possible look. Enough is enough. With every ‘new’ look, women are expected to change their bodies to how it has been decided they should look each season. The constant changing of expectations means that even within one’s own body there is no stability, no safety. Your body might be socially perfect one day and then the opposite of beauty the next. To try to remain socially acceptable is a never-end-
ing cycle of torture. Beauty is very much created by society – there is no one standard of beauty. ‘Beauty’ can change at the will of advertising meaning there is no pre-conceived idea of what is beautiful. We can look for the positives in the cycle of body trends. We can see it as a signifier that your body is beautiful just how it is, because I can guarantee that at some point it will have been the pinnacle of beauty. Let’s stop letting a few rich people decide what beauty is.
Bottom Line: Let’s get off the hamster wheel of ‘body trends’ and embrace the beauty of ourselves exactly as we are.
OPEN DOOR IS DOING ITS BEST DAN BENNETT DEPUTY EDITOR (HE/HIM)
OPEN DOOR IS a free support service available to University of York students who want to speak with a Mental Health Practitioner or Student Wellbeing Officer about mental health or psychological difficulties. If you are not in an urgent crisis but feel as though you need some kind of support, Open Door can offer you a series of sessions. Some people have found this service very helpful and praised it for getting through a tough time, but other people have had a more mixed experience. I am in the second camp. The last summer term was very difficult for me, for a multitude of reasons, so on the advice of friends, I referred myself to Open Door. I had my first hour-long session
where I genuinely felt listened to and had a safe space to verbally go through some stuff in the name of establishing a plan of action for future sessions. My next session was a month later, during which time my mental health got measurably worse, and my hour long session was ended after about 28 minutes. While I can’t remember the exact words used, I felt that my practitioner thought I was doing ‘fine enough’. I just had the impression the whole session that my mental health issues were not severe enough for the service, that I ranked a six on a service that only had room to take nine-10s, that because the only practitioning service I had available to me had judged me as not requiring their help then it was up to me alone to resolve these issues with abilities that I simply didn’t have, leading into one of the lowest and unhealthiest
period of my life. And I don’t blame Open Door for this one bit. With the current state of nationwide mental health services, I believe Open Door is doing the best it can under almost impossible circumstances. Mental health support services in this country are fucked, and the Tory sychophants responsible for unsustainable spending cuts to vital services should be treated like murderers. As per The Royal College of Psychiatrists, 23% of adults have to wait over three months to start treatment, and I, like many others, viewed the waiting times as so large that the NHS route wasn’t even worth bothering with as ‘one way or another, the issue will be resolved by the time I even get an initial assessment’. That leaves paying for private practitioning. This year I am in an incredibly privileged position where I can afford the £40-£80
7
costs of an average session and have been able to progress my mental health journey that way, but how many students this year can afford that when those most at need are struggling to pay for food and heating? Being the only option for so many students, at a time when so many students are suffering mental health difficulties, must place enormous pressure on everyone at Open Door, so of course the quality of the service varies and has to vary so that it can at least attempt to meet some of the needs of peo-
Bottom Line: Open Door is curently a serviceable point of call for those who need it. I just wish the country was in a better place to allow it to be so
A THIRTY MINUTE commmute to uni great. That same walk twice a day, everyday, when its raining, dark and gloomy is miserable. Being on Campus East for my First year meant I was a 20 minute walk away with the choice of the 66 bus. In second year, this is not an option. How would I have the time and energy to do my course in the day and then go to a society in the evening? Dedicating so much time to travelling was concern enough, but the thought of walking in the dark was terrifying. All of this was something I had never considered last year, and it forms part of a massive readjustment. Now, however, I look forward to my walks to campus; it’s a great way to get my head in the right zone, take some time to myself and get some fresh air. I’m shocked to say that the distance has allowed me to learn to love walking.
TRANS RIGHTS
BY LAURA ROWE
TRANS WOMAN AND influencer, Nikita Dragun, was put into a men’s holding unit after being arrested and charged with misdemeanour, disorderly conduct, and felony battery of a law enforcement officer. The placing of a trans woman into a men’s prison highlights that the American criminal justice system leaves almost no room for gender variance. There is no care or thought for the fact that trans inmates’ lives are being carelessly put in danger. The fact that transgender inmates are 13 times more likely to experience sexual violence whilst incarcerated should be a massive cause for concern for everyone- yet nothing has changed. Equally, the physical danger to trans inmates forms only one part of the problem. The fact that Dragun was seen by the court as male is horrifying. Facing both fear of physical violence and misgendering, the already difficult experience for Dragun was exemplified by the court’s cruel treatment of her. By placing her in the male quarter, the court has signalled to all trans people that the law does not recognise or respect who they are.