Fast fashion is a business model for low-cost, trendy clothes that mimic runway styles and are sold in typical street stores at a speedy pace to meet consumer demands. The desire for clothes to be produced in “backbreaking” time is to purchase them at the height of their popularity for a low price. This trend-led fashion cycle is a direct reflection of overconsumption for clothing styles that cause disastrous social and environmental effects in the long-run.

In our scramble for the hottest faux leather jacket or oversized T-shirt, the work put into the clothes worn on our backs never crosses the mind. Unbearable working hours, terribly low pay and extremely hazardous working conditions are just a few of the many issues.

In 2013, an eight-story Bangladeshi garment factory called Rana Plaza collapsed. Despite many structural warnings, the building owner stated it was safe and that all workers must return; otherwise, they would withhold pay. Consequently, the Rana Plaza crumbled by morning with thousands left inside. The majority of the workers employed at fashion factories like the Rana Plaza are young women who are often abused and exposed to toxins in the workplace, including inhaling poisonous chemicals emitted from the factory.

Fast fashion influences waste culture by cutting corners to mass-produce garments. The plethora of cheap clothing items causes people to view fashion as readily disposable. Consumers began buying more only to keep items for a short period before giving them away, leading to a large amount of clothing waste. Charity shops only take a small portion of clothes to be reused from the overwhelming amount of donations they receive. While the rest are dumped into the ocean, shipped abroad or incinerated — releasing toxins into the atmosphere. This process for eliminating an overabundance of fashion creates several environmental problems that have lasting adverse effects on the world.

Using data from the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Business Insider reported “The fashion industry produces 10% of all humanity’s carbon emissions, is the second-largest consumer of the worlds water supply and pollutes the oceans with microplastics.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) identifies microplastics as “plastic debris less than five millimeters in length,” that never breakdown. In 2017, a report was released by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 35% of microplastics found in the ocean come from washing synthetic textiles. When filtering the waterways, microfiber fragments that aren’t caught as sewage sludge end up in rivers and eventually, the sea.

About 20% of global wastewater is produced by the fashion industry, and it creates 10% of the world/s carbon emissions. Clothing brands are associated with depositing hazardous waste into the environment and causing irreparable damage.

If the fast fashion trend continues, the damages affecting the world will only continue to worsen unless people cut back on the insatiable demand. Consumers can make a conscious choice to reuse the clothes they already own for more extended periods instead of purchasing more temporary items. Not contributing to fast fashion will lower rates of landfill pollution and contamination in waterways. Buying preowned and better quality brands is a wonderful alternative to trendy, cheap fast fashion. Thrifting has also become a new fun and eco-friendly way to refashion existing clothing into something more stylish without wasting other materials. These small choices in your daily life can ultimately have a positive impact on the world and force fashion brands to rethink how they operate.

In 2001, the U.S. National Science Foundation created STEM, an education curriculum centered on building science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills in students.

However, a movement has grown for a change in the educational program system called “STEAM,” which incorporates adding the “arts” as one of the core subjects for students.

From President Obama, public officials have cautioned providing the arts with equal weight as the sciences would cause students to become distracted and weaken their STEM education, causing the economy to suffer. However, I believe the STEAM movement is trying to enhance student creativity that can be used to strengthen their STEM abilities.

The STEAM movement isn’t about taking time away from STEM skills to make more room for art; it’s about helping students tap into their imagination and express their individualism. Because the arts refer to a spectrum of different crafts, it opens several doors for future builders, dreamers and innovators. Exploring the use of art creates a pathway of new opportunities for expression.

By adding the arts, students would become more than just an analytical person but a person who is also imaginative, self-expressive and ultimately more well-rounded. The STEAM movement allows people not to have to side between a part of their brain. Instead, they can enhance both: creative and logical skills.

Sectioning off areas of study and centering focus on only logistical testing is a critical factor in the current low levels of engagement in STEM. Including art into the curriculum is an outlet for students who feel the current system is stifling their creativity by building a sense of enjoyment when learning. STEAM can provide non-science professionals the fuel and drive they need to be a success in the world.

Paving another way for students to learn actively will cause an increase in focus for STEM subjects as they’ve come to a newfound understanding of science, technology engineering, and math. Connecting artistic mediums allow a more delightful take on education with the absence of a highly pressured environment.

It’s easy to view science as above the arts because it’s influenced societal progress immensely through technological advancements. But often, artists’ fresh ideas and new perspectives inspire scientific advancement.

Leonardo Da Vinci, though best-known for his dramatic artwork, inspired scientific discoveries by sculpting accurate models of muscularity and the circulatory system. He studied chemistry to manifest the perfect paints and anatomy to understand muscularity of the human body. Da Vinci is renowned in several fields of science and serves as a role model for applying the scientific method to every aspect of life, especially the arts.

With technology becoming more efficient and sophisticated, artists provide diverse solutions through creative thinking. The addition of art offers another means of motivation for STEM learning, because STEAM doesn’t take anything away from STEM, but only adds to it.

Art deserves to be weighted equally with STEM, as it’s already incorporated throughout our society. It can be seen from the fashionable clothes on a person’s back to the next mumble rapper that’ll have their 15 minutes of fame. The world needs more innovators and dreamers like the artists that you subliminally admire in your daily life.

Gender-normative sales practices such as bright pink labels, sequined packaging and sweet scents of lilies are all centered toward women — a group of consumers that is not only underpaid but also expected to pay more for the same products men use. Women often have to pay a higher price when it comes to having the same lifestyle as men, especially when it comes to earning a living and purchasing goods and services.

The difference in wage earnings between men and women has been revealed in many instances. When comparing the salary between the two sexes, a 2021 report from Payscale reported that women make 82 cents for every dollar men make. Though the gap has shrunk with each progressing year, the growth in women’s salaries for doing the same jobs has only changed in increments. Women are also at a disadvantage as consumers, which contributes to higher poverty rates among their demographic. Stores often apply products targeted to women because of the idea that women purchase more than men: the “Pink Tax.” This term is used to define the tendency to market products that are feminine or meant for women to be more expensive than those marketed for men.

Whether intentional or not, the additional costs a person spends on products targeted for women can be very taxing. Even beginning at young ages, “girl toys” are priced higher than “boy toys.” Also, women’s hygienic products are priced higher than men’s simply because of different fragrances. For example, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (NYCDCA) found in a study reviewing 400 pairs of products for sale by New York City retailers that 42% of the time, women’s products had a higher price tag. Men’s products had a higher price tag 18% of the time, while both gender-targeted products were the same price the remaining 40% of the time. The study also found that in every age group between the sexes, women-targeted products were consistently priced higher than men-targeted ones. By the age of 65, a woman has a much larger income gap of 44%, in comparison to a man of the same age purchasing elderly products that are already 8% higher. Because of this, women are more likely to struggle to afford hygienic or health care products as they grow older.

Another influence toward gender-based pricing is the cost of tariffs for clothing items. A tariff is a tax imposed by the federal government on a particular class of imported or exported goods. Because retailers raise the cost of their merchandise to offset the cost of imported taxes, consumers are faced with paying the price for acquiring the products. Though there is some gender-neutral clothing, there are typically feminine versions that have a higher cost than other products. However, manufacturers aren’t the only ones to blame for the gender-targeted products having a large difference in pricing, as the Pink Tax is also found in everyday services.

The most common scenario of difference in paying for services is shown regarding auto maintenance. Women would often bring a boyfriend, father or brother to meetings with auto mechanics in order to receive the same treatment as men and to have equal, fair pricing. Because they are assumed to be less knowledgeable about the subject of cars, women are often given a much higher price than the value of the service provided. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research had a man and a woman call mechanics to receive a quote for the same repairs. People who seemed well-informed about the subject of cars were treated equally regardless of their gender. However, female callers who were uninformed were given quotes almost $23 more on average than male callers.

Unfortunately, there is no simple way to end the Pink Tax. However, there are simple everyday choices that can be made to lessen spending on feminine products that are similar to items geared toward men. Searching for gender-neutral products or products targeted toward men can help save on costs with products that carry out the same function. Whether it’s razors, kids’ toys or an oil change, taxing women higher on the same goods and services given to men is unfair. It contributes to discrimination and economic struggle, which women already face in other aspects of their lives. Being a woman is taxing, but there are ways people can lower the costs by addressing brands that continue to foster the system that discriminates against women with gender-based pricing.