Check Your Neck

My neck and collarbones have always been up there with my favourite body parts - when you have size 11 feet and a huge nose, you tend to appreciate the more delicate of your qualities.

Unusual, then, that I didn't notice the massive lump on the right side of my neck.

About three months ago, I went to see a doctor in relation to a completely separate issue, and before I even sat down to talk to the specialist, he said "wow, that's a big thyroid problem you have". I'd never noticed the large lump on the right side of my neck - I'm still not sure how long it was there for - but there it was.

Your thyroid looks like a butterfly and is found on your neck. It's one of the largest endocrine glands in your body (thank you Wikipedia) and consists of two interconnected lobes. The function of the thyroid (in non medical terms) is to release the hormones that regulate how a lot of how your body works. It's pretty small, but it's also pretty busy.

I had some tests, and after seeing both a thyroid surgeon and an endocrinologist, it was decided that while there was a large lump on the right half of my thyroid (taking up 90% of that half, in fact), there was nothing sinister about it and that it would be fine to leave everything be. If the cyst did need to come out though, I was told, my entire right thyroid would have to be removed as the cyst was too far engrained in my thyroid to be removed by itself. My hormone levels were perfect, and a follow up appointment was booked for three months down the track, just to see if anything changed. Due to the cyst being multi chambered, we couldn't perform a needle biopsy to check for the presence of cancer, however the doctors were confident that the risk was incredibly low.

One of my friends named the cyst "Clyde", and so that's what we all called him. People enquired about how he was going, and it sounds quite gruesome and disgusting, but it was all very funny.

Until, all of a sudden, it wasn't.

The lump had been quite sore for awhile, my voice had got a little lower, and I could definitely feel that the lump was pressing on my windpipe, which it hadn't been before. As it was only a few weeks until the appointment with the surgeon, we decided to wait until then. My appointment was on Monday the 13th of October, the Wednesday before I had to have an ultrasound, and on Friday morning we received a call from the surgeon telling us that the lump had grown quite a bit and it was going to need to come out.

When I was first told about the potential for a surgery, back in July, the scar was mentioned. I wasn't worried at all, and joked about how I'd have a battle scar and I didn't care at all. I wish I could say I reacted this way when I was told my right thyroid definitely had to be removed. I wish I could say that I brushed off the idea of a scar and that I was completely fine with the idea, however in all honesty, I really wasn't. It's funny, because I never considered myself that vain before, but I was devastated with the knowledge that I was going to permanently have a huge line across my neck and that there was nothing I could do about it.

I saw the surgeon in our scheduled appointment time that morning, and that afternoon, at 4pm, I had surgery to have my right thyroid gland removed, called a hemi thyroidectomy. When I woke up I spent some time in recovery ("You have a fever, they cook the patients in those operating theatres I swear"), and then was moved up to a nice ward. The first thing I did (after requesting and receiving dinner) was to put on the news - I knew that I would be upset about the scar, and so I wanted to get some perspective on life.

So, what happened after the surgery?

The general anaesthetic really rattled me, and Friday was the first day I made it without a nap - it might have helped that I slept until 11. I wasn't in much pain until Friday, and since then I have been quite uncomfortable. The location of the surgery means that moving my neck is, quite literally, a pain in the neck (ahh good one Laura), it's quite painful to swallow which makes eating difficult, and it also means my voice is nice and croaky (and squeaky sometimes).

Why am I writing this blog post?

Firstly, hey, I now have a massive scar on my neck, and this is why!

Secondly is for awareness. It concerns me a little to think about how long this cyst would have been there before I noticed it - we still don't know how long it was there for before the other specialist saw it. I was so lucky that the lump was found when it was - if we'd only noticed the lump when it started hurting, in September, we wouldn't have known that it had grown and so it would have had to be removed (if it grew more, which my surgeon has since told me it would have) in December. This would have put my plans for next year - six months in England on exchange - in jeopardy.

And finally, I wrote this post just to put down my thoughts.

This was something that rocked me a bit, although I never got super upset over it. However, yeah, it was quite scary. A lot of people commented that they were much more worried than I was, and I think it was like that for a few reasons. Firstly, there wasn't much I could do about it so there wasn't too much point in getting flustered. Secondly, I was going to be asleep for it so it wasn't really my problem. And thirdly, I thought it was quite a small surgery - I didn't realise the extent of it until after.

I wrote some of this post right after my ultrasound, and the majority on Sunday the 19th of October, however I'm adding a small bit now (Monday the 20th of October). I'm out of the house today, still struggling to move my neck a lot (me walking through uni is a fairly unique vision), however feeling much better. I saw my surgeon this morning, and am so thankful to be able to say that, following pathology tests, the cyst and my thyroid are cancer free. We don't know why Clyde grew, but he did. In a few weeks I'll have some blood tests to check my thyroxine levels, and after that, well, we'll see.

I also saw my actual scar for the first time this morning, after the final dressings were removed, and no, I'm not going to lie, it really isn't the prettiest thing out. It's a lot smaller than I was expecting, it's not as dark in colour, but I still have a scar stretching across my neck that wasn't there before. You can see it in t shirts, and I'm sure some people saw it at uni today and thought it was a bit unusual. But, strangely, I'm at peace with my new "battle scar".

My neck and collarbones have always been up there with my favourite body parts - when you have size 11 feet and a huge nose, you tend to appreciate the more delicate of your qualities. Unusual, then, that I have a fairly ugly scar right across the front of my neck.

More unusual, I guess, is that (surprisingly), I don't mind.

P.S. I also wanted to say thank you for the support I have received from my beautiful family and friends - I have been showered with love, chocolate, ice cream and presents, none of which I deserved, but everything that made the last week a little easier. I had some lovely visitors, as well as countless texts and messages of support from my good friends and family members. Thank you all so much - I was definitely cheered up a lot.

Thank You, Emma Watson

I've been writing a few blog posts lately, and after Emma Watson's beautiful speech, I had to take my rant about how some people are changing the term "Feminism" and fashion it into, what I can only hope, will be a response to her speech that hopefully does it at least some justice.

Dear Emma Watson,

Thank you for speaking to the UN about the importance of women's rights. Thank you for understanding that gender inequality is not just an issue faced by women, and that it is a problem that negatively impacts both genders: men, because they are expected to be strong and stoic by withholding their emotions; and women, because we do not receive equality in society's expectations or treatment. Thank you for presenting so beautifully on such an important topic. Emma Watson, thank you so much for understanding that being a feminist does not mean forgoing everything feminine.

And above all, thank you for putting the importance of feminism back on the agenda, and presenting it in a beautifully unaggressive manner.

Many women do not identify themselves as feminists due to the negative connotations that now surround the word. Feminism is not about men and women competing. It is not about women wanting to be better than men. Feminism is about bringing women up to be equal with men: politically, socially, and economically. 

If you are a man, who thinks that women should get equal pay, you are a feminist. If you believe that gender shouldn't matter when it comes to getting jobs, you are also a feminist. If you think that women should be lorded above men, and should receive higher pay rates because we're the better gender, you are not a feminist. You are a neo-Feminist.

I think it's important to make this distinction because a lot of people declare that they aren't feminists or find feminism aggressive; they think feminism is synonymous with female superiority and exactly the same as man-hating.

Some women label themselves as "Feminists" when they are definitely neo-Feminists: in favour of women being superior to men. This, in turn, ensures that the term "Feminism" is thought to be standing for an aggressive movement, when it is, in fact, the opposite. The use of this term in this way makes people pidgenhole the majority of feminists as man-hating extremists, and therefore discourages other women to speak out for their rights or identity as a feminist, for fear of judgement. 

It has been suggested that the term "Feminism" is too aggressive, and therefore, that it should be changed into something more fitting with what Feminism actually is: wanting equality between men and women, politically, socially and economically. I don't see why the term should be changed just because a few extremists got their hands on a word that means so much to so many people (not just women) all over the world. A lot of the men who have a problem with the over aggression of some feminists have the same problem with them that us feminists have in the first place - inequality due to gender.

While the HeForShe campaign is primarily aimed at benefiting women - because, realistically, inequality affects women, at least in a statistical sense, far more than men - Emma acknowledged that by removing gender stereotypes, men can be free to be sensitive, while women can be free to be strong, and this is why Emma's speech is so important. Suicide is the leading causing of men in the UK between the ages of 20 and 49, and so we need to start thinking about societal expectations negatively affecting men too. 

I think it is so important that men are part of this move for gender inequality, not just because of the benefits it has for them, but also because we can't expect change if we are attempting to mobilise only half of those who may be able to help us. We need everyone to fight for gender inequality, not just one half of the world. 

However, I think it is important to acknowledge as well that some people: male, female, whatever, will be against Feminism, not due to a lack of understanding about the term, but a lack of appreciation or wanting for change to come around. 

If wanting equal pay for equal work isolates some people from me, so be it. If wanting to be able to walk home safely is seen as aggressive, so be it. If wanting to be treated as more than the "F" gender box that I tick is seen as unattractive, then so be it, because I do not exist to be attractive: I exist to be the best possible me, regardless of my sex. 

Emma, thank you so much for reclaiming the term "Feminism", and ensuring that people understand that it is about equality, and how this equality will be beneficial for both men and women. 

Be the voice that you want to hear, be the change that you want to see in the world, and, above all, be the person who you want to be, regardless of your gender.

Lots of love, Laura

P.S. You'll always be more than "that Harry Potter girl" to me.

Victim blaming isn't new, but it's getting old

The recent photograph "scandal" affecting over one hundred celebrity women has shocked and horrified me, however, what (sadly) haven't surprised me have been the reactions that are blaming the women who have had their private photographs shared with the world. Victim shaming and blaming isn't new, but it's getting old and it's getting old fast.

"She shouldn't have taken the photographs" sounds awfully similar to "she shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt", don't you think? Different scenarios, but ultimately blaming victims for an act that only the hackers/ assaulters should be receiving punishment and judgement for. A lack of empathy for the women in this situation is disgusting and really quite heartbreaking - I can imagine they would be feeling unsafe, scared, and possibly embarrassed that something that was meant to be so private can now be accessed all over the world.

People are speaking out about how these women made a mistake. No, I don't think they did. They're saying how they should have known better. NO! That's just like saying someone should know better than to get drunk and walk home alone. That someone should know better than to wear a short skirt. That someone should know better than to take a taxi home by themselves.

Do you know what some people need to know better?

Some people should know better than to prey against a women who has had too much to drink and is just trying to get home safely. Some people should know better than to assault a woman, just because of what she is wearing. Some people should know better than to hack into systems to share photographs that were obviously taken for personal reasons and put somewhere seemingly private.

This person did not just stumble across these photographs - this person went looking for them, hacked into systems, and broke the law. The fact is, this is crime against women. If it was a crime against celebrities, there would be photographs of males amongst the hundreds of women - I'm sure there are at least a few of them floating around on various unprotected iClouds. It was women who were affected, women who are receiving the blame for taking the photographs in the first place, and women who are sick of being blamed and shamed for something that just isn't our fault.

But regardless of the gender who was affected by this crime, celebrities should not have to deal with a complete invasion of their privacy just because their work is seen by millions. By signing a movie deal or a record contract, they are signing to record a movie or an album. They are not signing away their private lives. No one has the right to see anyone else's body without that person's consent. That may be in the case of sexual assault, that may be in the case of photographs, whether they be of a celebrity or someone else. If Jennifer Lawrence (or any of the other celebrities) did not send those photographs to you, what the hell are you doing looking at them? They're none of your business, you're creepy, just stop. If a celebrity appears in a movie or in a photo shoot in various states of undress, that's a completely different situation than what has happened here. A movie intended for mass production and consumption is different to private photographs - the fact that someone had to hack into systems to see them suggests that they were not meant to be viewed by others. Consent is the difference here.

You know what? We learn when we're younger that any photograph we take may end up being seen across the world - I am sure that that risk increases a thousand fold if you live in the public eye. However, that doesn't mean that it's something you should expect, or that it makes it any more okay or understandable for someone to hack into someone's iCloud and share their private photographs. It's just like how, as a young female, I have been taught not to walk home by myself late at night, to reduce my risk of something happening to me. If, however, I did decided to walk home alone, and something did happen, that wouldn't put me in a position of blame (or, at least, it shouldn't - there are plenty of people around the world who would believe it was my error that caused whatever happened to me to occur).

It doesn't make it any more acceptable for what happened to occur. Like many other things, it's a safeguard that we have been taught to protect ourselves and our loved ones against some of the creepers that share our world.

We live in a sad world where things like hacking photographs of celebrity women happens, however it’s sadder still when these women cop the blame for someone else’s reprehensible actions. There are actions that we can take to safe guard ourselves something like this occurring, however not taking these actions does not make it okay for someone to be a victim. It doesn't mean they deserve what happened to them. 

Stop victim blaming, and start perpetrator blaming.

Do we care?

I've read so many articles and comments lately following the dual tragedies of MH17 and Gaza, berating people for only caring about "privileged white people" and ignoring the plight of fellow humans. So many articles in relation to the MH17 tragedy seem to go on about other accidents and deaths that have occurred around the same time, citing the lack of media coverage and using this as proof that the majority of people just don't care.

I actually have another reason for this.

The thing is, every human life lost is a tragedy. Whether that life is lost in a war, in a crash, as a result of a sickness, a suicide, or from old age, is irrelevant. Everyone who dies has a mother and a father; everyone (I hope) has someone who values them, who would mourn them. I don't think a lack of coverage about deaths in different circumstances (e.g. road crashes) means that we think that they don't "matter", nor does the lack of coverage or compassion about deaths in Gaza or the persecution of Christians by ISIS.

What is happening in Gaza at the moment is devastating. People dying as a result of famine in Africa is devastating. However, I think the reason that plane crashes and disappearances receive so much coverage (especially as of late) is because it seems more likely that we will be affected by a crash such as this, instead of in a famine in a place we have never visited.

People are (understandably) more concerned with events that affect them, whether directly or indirectly. We're selfish, therefore we're interested in these things because they impact on our lives. However, more than this, we find startling parallels between the lives of those affected, whether they were in the plane or had relatives in the planes, and us. Events that affect people from our community concern us more, because we are close to them - we might live in the same suburb, shop at the same Coles, share a similar life with them.

That's why I think that the story of MH17 has touched and devastated so many people who are impacted by the crash. Aside from the heart wrenching stories of loss and grief, we can't help but think "that could have been me".

We're going to be more affected by the death of someone following a car crash if it occurred on a road we frequently drive on, rather than if it happened on the opposite side of the world. We will be more interested in the journey of our country to a sporting game, because, to some extent, it concerns us. It doesn't mean that we don't think the other countries matter, it doesn't mean that we think other deaths don't matter - they just don't have the same relevance to us.

Turning a the comments section of a well meaning article into "well more people died here, why aren't we talking about them? RIP to EVERYONE who has died NOT JUST THOSE WHO DIED ON MH17" does not help the situation at all. Putting numbers on these stories, at least for me, has the completely opposite effect to what is desired. Comparing the number of people dying in Gaza to the number of people killed in MH17 doesn't make those in Gaza seem more important - it looks as though the writer, or speaker, thinks tragedy is measured by numbers, and I don't think that that is true at all.

Tragedy is measured in lost opportunities, in separated families, and this can occur anywhere in the world.

I'm not denying that people are more drawn to events that are seen as "exciting" and "unusual" - for example, being drawn to a plane crash instead of a car crash. We're also more drawn to events that may seem common, but that affect places or people that they do not normally affect, for example, the Ebola outbreak affecting American citizens.

I'm not saying that I think other devastating events shouldn't receive more press coverage - I think they should. I don't think it's fair that so much more attention is devoted to issues that affect us, however I understand why that is the case. For the majority of people, they're interested in news that can affect them. For me, as an International Relations student, I'm interested in news from around the world, regardless of whether I share any aspects of my life with it. And so, instead of looking at news.com or ninemsn for my news updates, I search further afield. The news you want is out there, it's just not on the websites dedicated to the average Joe who is only looking for news that is relevant to his life.

Instead of downplaying the people killed in tragedies that gain more attention, write about events that you wish had more media coverage. Suggest to media outlets that they focus on these other events, because people like you (their clients) do care, and are interested in them as well. Research those other events, bring them up in conversations.

In sad times like these, it's important to remember that while each death should be grieved, turning tragedy and grief into a game of numbers trivialises the issues and takes away from what is really important - remembering those we have lost, and helping the families who have lost loved ones. As Rin Norris and Anthony Maslin so eloquently said, "pain is not a story".

So let's not turn grief into a competition.

Rape: Use your words (but not that one)

Nothing makes me feel more sick than seeing the word "rape" used casually, including rape jokes, and using rape as verb to describe something that definitely is not rape.  "We got raped at that football game." "That girl is rapeable". "My maths exam raped me". Absolutely disgusting. Rape is not a word that should be used in an everyday context. Unless you're talking about something that legitimately was rape (in which case, no one would be laughing), you're not using the right word.

I find the use of the word "rape" in any conversation where you're not actually speaking about rape absolutely deplorable, however especially in the context of someone finding someone "rapeable". What, you think they're hot, so that makes it excusable for you to forcefully have sex with them? Wow. You're so cool. What a drop kick.

Using this word in such an every day context trivialises the idea of rape. Don't tell me you're having a laugh. Don't tell me I'm being sensitive. Don't tell me to get a sense of humour. People who are making rape jokes have never been raped, they don't worry about being raped, they probably don't know an who has been raped, and they're actually legitimising the actions of rapists or potential rapists by making their actions seem more socially acceptable, as well as reminding victims of sexual assault and rape of what may have occurred.

While rape does not only affect women, it is something that primarily affects women, and we don't find the use of the term funny at all. Rape jokes? Not even slightly humorous. I'd rather a good old "knock knock" joke. I don't find rape jokes funny because the threat of sexual assault or rape is something that legitimately frightens me; something that sees me not going for walks by myself when it's dark, makes me careful about taking public transport by myself, causes me to not even consider taking a taxi alone, and causes me to freeze if I hear a noise when I'm home by myself at night. And while being alone may freak me out a little bit, I know that I'm not alone when it comes to hatred of rape jokes and of the term "rape" being used so casually.

I read on Tumblr (hem, again) a story about a classroom in America, when a student was talking about someone else's sexual assault, and another student said something along the lines of "she should have been in the kitchen, then it wouldn't have happened!" We do not need to culture this ignorance, this stupidity, this victim shaming. "Just a joke!"? It's not funny, and it can't go on.

An example of the idea of "rape" being thrown around? Robin Thicke. Don't even get me started (well, I've started). As catchy as the song "Blurred Lines" is, it's pretty disgusting when you listen to the lyrics. "I know you want it". No, you think she wants it. But hey, because she said no, what you think she does or doesn't want is out of the equation. Back off. The song actually got banned from some student pubs in England - this move was accused of being too politically correct. I personally don't see what is wrong with banning something that is essentially rape propaganda.

Get a little bit more creative with your language. "Wow, that team was much better than us at football. We got a bit destroyed". "Wow, that girl is very pretty". "I just got owned by my maths exam". "Goodness gracious golly gosh I wrote like a bumbling baboon in my English exam".

Nothing I love more than calling people out for being racist/ sexist and seeing them squirm awkwardly (I sound awful. Ah well, better they learn now). I mean, chances are, if someone says "I got raped by my maths exam" and you ask them to explain, they'll be sitting there opening and closing their mouth like a goldfish, realising that no, they weren't raped by their maths exam. They struggled a bit to answer everything, they wish that they had studied harder, and the exam was more difficult than they expected. They were not raped in anyway way, shape, or form, by that maths exam.

"You know that that's not what I meant". Yeah, I do. I don't know why you used that word though. There's nothing wrong with a bit of exaggeration, however using the word "rape" isn't exaggeration - it's just stupid. There's a difference between something taking away your choices, something removing all control from you, something done to create fear and something as life changing as rape, and exaggerating about something a little.

I'm sick of terms like "rape" being thrown around in every day language. It's not okay. Rape and sexual assault in general are not funny - the sheer thought of them is terrifying, they're life altering, soul crushing, and not even remotely humorous.

Next time you try to be a bit cute and use "rape" as a term to describe something you find difficult, take it back. It's not rape. You know that. Next time you describe someone as "rapeable", take a step back and really think about what you're saying. You're surely not thinking that the way they look excuses something as awful as rape, are you? No? I didn't think so. So why do you feel the need to say that? And if you think it does excuse it? You really need to take a look at yourself, and quite possibly talk to someone.

To give us all a bit of credit - the vast majority of people understand that rape and sexual assault is so, incredibly wrong. That's why we all need to stop casually using the word "rape" in every day language - it's not what we mean. And as for Robin Thicke? People are slowly starting to wake up to the fact that his lyrics and attitudes are not even remotely okay - #AskThicke on Twitter was a PR nightmare - here are some gems below.

Rape is NEVER funny. Use your words, get more original with your vocabulary, and stop using the word "rape" where it doesn't belong. We're all smarter than that. It's not cute, it's not funny, no one has any idea what you're talking about, and yes, when you talk about being "raped" by an exam, you do sound like a bumbling baboon.

Part of the #YesAllWomen movement.

University Wars: Artscism

I'm not a huge fan of the Articism (new term - I made it up) that I have faced ever since I started university. I am an Arts student, and I'm proud of that. I don't mind it when people poke fun at me a little bit, and when teasing is done in jest - I can take that as well as the next person, and I don't mind having a bit of a joke about my lack of contact hours. A little bit of teasing about what I'll do after my degree is fine, I can take a joke, and yeah, Arts degrees aren't exactly renowned for producing high earning graduates.

However, what really annoys me is when people say "what can you even do with an Arts degree?" and, the ever famous (and oh-so-original), *insert obnoxious comment about burger flipping here*. There's nothing wrong with working at a fast food joint - it's just not where I hope my degree will take me, and it's not where I'm planning on working. "What are you going to do with an Arts degree?" and "what are you going to do with an ARTS degree?!?!" are not the same thing - I think you can probably tell the difference.

I'll tell you where my Arts degree is going to get me. It's going to get me into a career that I am happy with. It will (hopefully) get me into postgrad studies in the field that I am interested in. It will show future employees that I had the time, effort and dedication to work through a three year degree, all the while working several part time jobs, travelling, and everything else I have set my mind to. I see my degree as a way of getting me into postgraduate studies (although I could get work based on my Arts degree, especially with my majors as Communications and Political Science/ International Relations). A lot of jobs in the fields of work I'm interested in don't really care what you studied (just that you studied), just if you can do your job well.

The thing is, with a lot of undergraduate degrees, you need to do postgraduate studies to make full use of them. Undergraduate degrees such as physio and occupational therapy will allow you to work in that field, however studying human biology isn't going to make you a doctor, and studying pharmacology as a major of a science degree won't allow you to work in that field until you study it as a postgraduate degree. A lot of people, regardless of whether they are interested in science, arts, design, whatever, study broad undergraduate degrees prior to specifying postgrad.

I work hard for my degree. Yes, I have a low number of contact hours. However, for several of my units, I have a minimum allocation of 50 pages of reading a week, usually in complex language on difficult to comprehend political issues. I have 3000 word essays (and boy, they feel like 6000 words). I still have a lot to do - however, instead of readings and essays being structured into my contact hours - like labs, lectures and tutes - I need to discipline myself and make sure I do them when I'm not at uni. Arts degrees are different to other degrees because instead of learning and regurgitating facts and equations, there is a focus on expression (e.g. essays) and debating your point of view.

While sciences and maths aren't my strong point (nothing quite like that slap in the face after studying for hours for your Year 10 physics final and ending up with 49%), I have a passion for the written word, history, drama, politics, communications, and other artsy subjects. Why would I push myself to study subjects I dislike and that I'm not good at, instead of following my passion? Much as I would love to be drawn to medicine and make millions as a surgeon, it ain't going to happen, and I've accepted that.

There probably are some people who are doing an Arts degree because for them, it's easy. However, that's not everyone. There are probably some people studying Commerce because numbers come easy for them - they don't have to work hard at that. Does that make what they're doing the easy way out? Why don't they cop flak for studying numbers because they hate writing essays?

As for the specific criticism over majors - people study what they want because it interests them, or because of the career that it will get them into. For example, History of Art majors. This always seems to be the major that I hear copping a lot of flak. I have never done a unit associated with History or the History of Art, however I can imagine why people would be studying it. Firstly: it interests them, and they are coupling this major with a second major that relates to their chosen field of work. Secondly (and woah, this one is revolutionary): They want to work with art's history. What? Wow? No? Never!!

Why would I study Commerce when finance and numbers do not interest me? Why would I study Design when I can't draw and it's not something I find fun? (Little story - I drew a self portrait in Year 7 Art and took it home, super excited, to show mum. Her response? "Wow Laura, that's great! Who is it?") Why would I study Science when the longest I lasted in one science unit at my university was 2 hours? (It wasn't too hard, rocks just do not interest me).

So no, I don't mind if you have a joke with me about how I'm studying an Arts degree. You're right - I don't have many contact hours, and what I'm studying probably doesn't seem as hard to you as the wacky engineering stuff you spend your time on. It's okay if you tease me about only going to uni twice a week - I admire you making it in for every health science lecture and tute, really, you're much more dedicated them me!

Obviously Arts degrees aren't the only ones that cop it, and I think we should all be a little bit more encouraging of each other's studies. At the end of the day, us uni students are all in this together - juggling exams, coursework, classes, working, friends, eating, sleeping, trying to keep fit, and also remaining somewhat sane at the same time. Shouldn't we all support each other?

If you legitimately think that an Arts degree is the easy way out (and plan on shouting that from the rooftops instead of keeping it to yourself), two things: 1) Go and write a Political Science essay and let me know how you go. And 2) Make your own damn cheeseburger, because with the amount of work I put into my studies instead of putting everyone else down about their degrees, I won't be the one who ends up in a career that I don't want.

Be appreciative, be humble. Turn back the boats…or should we?

Before I start, I just wanted to quickly define the terms asylum seeker and refugee. Prior to writing this post, I wasn't entirely sure what the difference between the two was - hopefully this helps you if you have the same problem. Asylum seeker - someone seeking international protection but whose claim for refugee status has not yet been determined. Refugee - someone who has been recognised under the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees as a refugee - "owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...". Source

Something that has been tossed around on the news a lot lately is about asylum seekers, and whether they should be allowed to arrive and/ or settle in Australia. I am honestly astounded that in a country as fortunate as ours, that I am proud to be part of, so many people are against this. Yes, I understand that not everyone who comes to Australia on a boat is a legitimate asylum seeker. I understand that there have been people in the past who have connections to terrorist organisations. But when you tell me we should not let LEGITIMATE refugees into Australia after they have arrived on a boat, I want you to answer a few questions for me.

What did you do to allow you to be born in a country as fortunate and prosperous as ours? How come you're allowed to receive government benefits if necessary, be able to walk outside without a fear of being shot, and have access to government funded education? How come you can choose what religion to practise, or not to practice religion at all? How come you weren't born in a country that you need to escape from? What makes you so special?

Once again, yes, I know that not everyone arriving on a boat is a legitimate asylum seeker. I also know that there are other ways of looking for a safe country to live in. I also understand that by allowing people to settle into our country this way, we are encouraging more people to risk their lives in travelling to Australia. However, although Tony Abbott's measures have stemmed the flow of boats, there are still boats arriving in Australia. Imagine if risking your life by floating on the back of a vessel that can be hardly be called a boat was preferable to staying in your own country?

People toss around that asylum seekers shouldn't be allowed to travel to our country because it's illegal. Actually, it is legal. I have heard of "the right of asylum" before however I never had properly looked into it before. Today, I did. It's an "ancient juridical concept", under which a person prosecuted in their home country may be protected by another foreign country. Therefore, people who are traveling to Australia "illegally" on boats, due to fears of racial or religious prosecution in their home country, are actually within their rights to do so (once again, I know people can seek asylum in alternative ways).

When people speak about how we shouldn't do something, e.g. travel or wear a certain brand because people who are less fortunate than us cannot, I don't believe this is correct. We have been given a fantastic opportunity in life, whether that is to afford education, travel, shopping or having a car, and I think we should take advantage of the opportunities that are offered to us and enjoy them. We have worked hard to be able to afford these things, as so I think we should embrace them and appreciate them. Feeling bad about situations in other countries will only make you upset - it's not going to change anything. Instead, I want to embrace my opportunities for me, but also use them to help other people.

However, we have been born into a country where you are rewarded if you work hard. I understand that Australia isn't perfect - we have homeless people, we have our own issues, however in comparison to so many other countries in the world, we are so lucky. We have been born into a country where education at a high school level is a right, and where higher education loans are low interest and simple to obtain. I am fortunate that, as a girl, I was born into a country where education is a real possibility and opportunity for me; where me receiving an education and going to university is encouraged on the same level as for my male counterparts. We have been put into a position that has allowed us to be rewarded for our hard work, and therefore, be able to afford things like those mentioned above, as well as being able to live a life free from punishment due to our races or religions. 

On a side note, the fact that the Australian government is considering sending refugees to Cambodia makes me feel a little sick. After spending time there during the summer, I came to realise how although it is a beautiful country, it is also very impoverished, and the government is not completely honest with its people. The only people who will be benefiting from asylum seekers originally heading to Australia being sent to Cambodia instead are those in power in Cambodia. It is such a vulnerable nation that is still recovering from its own civil war, and their people should be the first priority. On the other hand, refugees being sent to Cambodia may find themselves in a similar, if not worse, living situation than what they had to deal with in their own country.  

We don't realise how lucky we are in Australia.

Have a little bit of empathy for people who aren't as fortunate as you are. There is nothing but chance allowing you to live the life that you lead - nothing but chance putting you into a position where hard work is rewarded (and unfortunately, not so hard work is also rewarded). So yes, work hard, and appreciate your earnings - but remember, you are only getting what you receive because of a little stroke of luck. I'm not proposing that we allow everyone in the whole world to live in Australia purely because they arrived here by boat. Please, don't take what I'm saying and make me sound ridiculous and extreme. I'm proposing that we find a little bit of empathy, and be a little bit more understanding of other people's situations throughout the world, because it was only luck that allows us to live the lives we lead - considering almost half the world's population lives on less than $2.50 a day, I feel super fortunate to be in my position. Be appreciative, but also be humble. Turn back the boats...or should we?