Sarah Everard went missing on the 3^rd March 2021 in Clapham, South London, on her way home from visiting a friend. She took the same precautions every woman is conditioned to take when walking alone – she was wearing brightly coloured clothing, walking on a main road, and talking on the phone with her boyfriend.

If you are a woman, you will be familiar with this routine. Do not go anywhere alone. You must tell someone where you are going. Never wear revealing clothing. Avoid walking anywhere after sundown. If you follow these unspoken rules, you will be ok.

Sarah followed the rules. Yet her remains were found in an area of woodland over a week later with a male police officer being charged for her murder.

The death of Sarah Everard has sparked an outcry from women across the UK on social media. Many have expressed fears for their own safety and shared their experiences of harassment, stalking and male violence. As a woman, I identify with Sarah. I often make the same calculations she did when walking alone. Much like Kate McCann, a political correspondent at Sky News, I have learned to keep my “keys gripped between fingers, map the corner shops we could duck into en route. Swap shoes for trainers in case we need to run. Keep music low or turned off,” as she said in this tweet.

As women, we are on constant high alert for our own safety. Which is why the “#NotAllMen” hashtag can be damaging for women living in an already frightening reality wherein our lives could be taken simply by making the journey home alone.

#NotAllMen is being used as a scapegoat to undermine the experiences of women with male violence that are very real and very valid. Singer Marina Diamandis tweeted on the matter, calling it an “avoidance tactic used by men who find it too "uncomfortable" to do the internal work required to address misogyny.”

Labour MP, Jess Phillips, listed the names of all women killed in the UK over the past year where a man has been convicted or charged in a speech to Parliament last week.

“Killed women are not vanishingly rare, killed women are common,” she told Parliament. Her speech was over five minutes long.

It is true that not all men are violent offenders. Not all men are a risk to a woman’s safety. However, statistically, 20% of women have experienced a form of sexual violence since the age of 16, and between 120 and 150 women and girls over the age of 14 are killed in male violence against women every year in the UK, according to Nia.

By raising the issue and asking for safer streets, women are not accusing every single man of being a criminal.  But how are women to know the difference on the side of a road after dark? If we stop treating everyone around us as perpetrators, the risk that we will be targeted by one of the men that does pose a threat skyrockets.

True, it is not all men. But many of the men who are a part of the problem have never even criminally offended.

To clarify for those confused, this means that it is the men who grope, grab and stare at women in public. It is the men who victim blame a woman for her sexual assault. Men who make rape jokes. Men who catcall women from cars. Men who do not understand consent. Men who think we are overreacting. Men who force themselves on women. Men who contribute to the narrative that women are objects. Men who turn a blind eye to another man’s violence. Men who do not see the problem.

It is not all men, but it is the men who dismiss this conversation by tweeting “#NotAllMen”.

It is the men who defend their manhood because they are more appalled by the issue being raised than the issue itself. It is the men who believe making small changes to how they approach and talk about women will not make a difference.

If you are reading this and grappling with yourself on how you can make a difference and show solidarity with women, I suggest joining the conversation regarding how you can be an ally to women in our current climate. This means intervening when you see a woman being harassed, calling out objectifying or discriminatory jokes, giving women space on public transport, not following them in the street, educating your friends/brothers/fathers/sons on how to act sensitively and on the meaning of consent, and most importantly listening with open ears when women tell you their truths.

Remember: silence is acceptance. Silence is approval.

If you are a man, and you are offended by any of the issues raised in this post, I will leave you with this thought: no, it is not all men. But it probably is you.

It may not be all men but is is all women.

© VIA REUTERS

“I don’t believe a word she says,” is what former Good Morning Britain host Piers Morgan announced to millions of viewers after Duchess Meghan Markle revealed her struggle with her mental health and suicidal thoughts in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. “I wouldn't believe her if she read me a weather report.”

Meghan is just one of many women worldwide who have experienced serious battles with mental health and suicidal thoughts. In her interview we learn how she was dismissed time and time again by Royal officials, and on a larger scale by the public, with thousands of social media users branding her a "cry baby," and a "liar," among many other harmful stereotypes.

Women’s mental health has been criminally undermined for years. We see it everywhere, from pop culture to classic novels (take Jane Eyre and the “mad woman in the attic” narrative), “female hysteria” being one of the most commonly diagnosed disorders in the 18^th and 19^th century as a way to explain away a woman’s struggle with mental health as an inherent and predisposed characteristic of being a woman and nothing more.

Of course, modern concepts of mental health allow women to be diagnosed more accurately, but the echoes of the female hysteria myth can still be heard. Women are consistently told that the negative experiences they go through are their fault – their choice to wear a short skirt meant they were “asking for it”, their cries for help in times of mental distress mean they are looking for “attention”, they are “crazy”, or they are “hysterical”. Clinicians still act as though women’s symptoms are exaggerated with women being more likely to be misdiagnosed or simply not diagnosed at all in comparison to men. When women describe having suicidal thoughts they aren’t taken seriously, despite evidence showing that millions of people do experience them every year.

Female hysteria is a phrase that translates to “it’s all in her head,” and that is exactly the damaging message Piers Morgan’s chillingly cool indifference to a woman asking for help portrays to the masses. His reaction is a prime example of a society steeped in scepticism and stereotypes, in which a culture of blaming women shames them for seeking help and forces them into silence instead of opening a conversation and encouraging them to seek support.

In 2020, figures show that suicide rates among young women and girls reached a record high in England and Wales, increasing by 94% – so why are we still pretending that the growing mental health threat to our women isn’t very real and very dangerous so long as we continue to victim blame?

Invalidating trauma is counterproductive, say experts.

"It shames them and thus silences them, which is the exact worst possible reaction in terms of ever preventing a suicide," says David Jobes, director of the Catholic University of America's Suicide Prevention Lab and creator of CAMS – Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality.

Immediate intervention and support are crucial in preventing death numbers rising. Networks like the Women’s Mental Health Network are campaigning to give mental health needs the voice they need to find this support.

“The network’s focus is to improve women’s experience of using statutory services in a range of settings, such as hospitals, prisons, drugs and alcohol, housing, social services, by influencing them to become more gender-specific.”

Language like “I don’t believe” and “she’s crazy” can be fatal. Meghan Markle’s interview is an important cultural moment in the fight to normalise talking openly about a topic considered taboo. It is a reset for women whose voices are screaming to be heard.

We should be praising Meghan, and all women, for seeking the support they deserve. We should be listening to women, not dismissing them.

"Cancel Culture" by markus119 is marked with CC0 1.0

2020 was a year of change. Not only in terms of lifestyle and outlook for millions across the world due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, but for politics and society too.

We all followed the Black Lives Matter movement and the call for police reform on Twitter after the murder of George Floyd in May, and saw the Facebook posts branded #MeToo in the light of the allegations of domestic abuse against Johnny Depp by Amber Heard. British Politician Jeremy Corbyn was outcast from the labour party after anti-Semitic comments resurfaced and author J K Rowling’s name has trended more than a few times in response to her opinionated tweets regarding Transgender rights.

What do these events have in common? All were driven by public outcry on social media, the new way to protest for justice in the age of internet access and global lockdown restrictions across the globe.

 “Cancel Culture” has gained more media traction this year than ever -- a term coined to describe a modern form of online justice, in which a person is shunned from social and professional circles for expressing views or behaviour that goes against the left-wing ,“socially woke” norm of the internet today.

Or more simply, revoking support for those with status who are considered harmful to minorities, cultures or institutions.

Cancel Culture has largely affected the social media “influencer” crowd, with many being criticised for “misusing” their fan-dependent platforms with the controversial content they put online. Youtuber Shane Dawson is among many to have suffered a career blow, losing 60,000 subscribers after coming under fire for past displays of racism and paedophilia.

Cancel Culture has even been the driving force in more prolific instances, such as in the case of Kathy Griffin, American comedian, who faced backlash and lost her spot on CNN in 2017 for uploading a picture of her posing with a likeness of former President Donald Trump's severed head.

“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”

“Cancelling” can be gruelling for those involved because of its public nature. Twitter has become the mothership for cancellations of public figures, the ‘trending hashtag’ feature allowing thousands of Twitter users to spread the word of someone’s wrongdoings to the masses in minutes.

It could be compared to a modern form of execution; a guilty party is held accountable for their crimes in front of the digital masses, but instead of losing their head they lose their online presence, their reputation or in some cases, their career.

But is it a rallying cry for those with public platforms to be held accountable for the rippling aftereffects of their actions? Or is it simply a counterproductive way of punishing them, “casting stones” as former President Barack Obama said at the Obama Foundation summit in 2019, without bringing about the true intention behind cancel culture: change.

A CAUSE FOR CHANGE?

“Call-Out Culture” largely originated as a response to the #MeToo movement, gaining media traction in 2017 after the widespread sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein surfaced. The movement aimed to empower women, seeking change and solidarity in numbers by publicising allegations (or “calling out”) the sex crimes committed by powerful men in society to the masses.

In the era of the internet, this largely took place on social media; new allegations appeared almost daily, and the public’s attitude towards the accused warped. They were now “cancelled”, or in other words, ostracised from society. For those who were “called-out”, such as singer-songwriter and alleged sexual abuser R.Kelly, their past work and legacy became tainted; his music was no longer enjoyable in good taste to his fans and his popularity diminished despite being found innocent. For many following the case online this was a small, but ample form of justification for his crimes, spearheaded by the public on behalf of his victim’s where the legal system appeared to fail them.

The term “call-out culture” has evolved in recent years, giving birth to it’s more mainstream sister “Cancel Culture.” It slowly leaned away from just existing to hold abusers accountable and became a way for normal people like you and me to reject views that don’t abide by our moral codes. Lisa Nakamura, professor of media studies at the University of Michigan, defined cancelling as simply a "cultural boycott" in which “the act of depriving someone of attention deprives them of their livelihood” in an interview with The New York Times in 2018.

Whether that be in the case of Kevin Hart who was forced to step down as host of the 2019 Grammy’s after a controversy regarding homophobic tweets, or the never ending stream of politicians and celebrities being called out for racism, cancel culture became a tactic for those of us who lack the social power to enact change; to dismantle oppression and abuse as a collective, simply through our refusal to participate.

Cancel Culture has played an integral role in letting voices for change be heard this year. The Black Lives Matter movement of 2020 was spearheaded by powerful internet activists who demanded reform and justice, “calling out” the racial prejudice ingrained in pop culture by using “cancelling” as a form of accountability. This is one example of a call for greater equality, a reckoning. A digital way to protest, in which social media users refuse to support harmful ideals any longer.

“Held accountable or silenced?”

Whilst there are evidently “mobs” of supporters, those who are the loudest critics of “cancel culture” are also some of the loudest defenders of “free speech” and “open debate”. An open letter presented by Harper’s Bazaar in July 2020 views cancel culture as being inherently harmful in and of itself. The letter, which was signed by 150 writers, academics and activists, says that: “free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted”.

“In a spirit of panicked damage control, [we] are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms.”

“We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus.”

The letter goes against what Cancel Culture represents completely; it presents it as suffocating, as a way of stifling freedom of expression using fear tactics. Instead of enforcing a new set of moral and political commitments through change, is cancel culture just silencing those who do not favour ideological conformity?

Education VS Ostracization

Ayishat Akanbi, British stylist and writer, believes in the importance of education as a reckoning for change. In an interview with Double Down News she said: “Mistakes are how we find ourselves, it’s how we learn.”

“We should be a bit more forgiving of peoples mistakes … if you are seeking a deeper understanding, you welcome being wrong, it’s a pleasure to be wrong. Because when you are wrong, you are closer to being right.”

Akanbi warns of the dangers of advocacy simply being motivated by the fear of being cancelled. If we cannot make mistakes, how are we to expect ourselves and others to learn from them?

“Mob culture is terrifying.” She admits. “But if you are committed to trying to make the world a better place, you have to be prepared to think for yourself.”