Monday, May 5, 2025
Blog Page 1222

Debate: should faith be kept private?

Anonymous
-
0
Debate: should faith be kept private?

Yes

Anonymous

Religion can be very divisive precisely because people hold different religions to be true. If you are Christian you cannot be a Muslim; if you are Jewish you cannot be a Sikh. It is a way in which people define themselves in opposition to others; Christian versus heathen, Jew versus Gentile, Muslim versus infidel.

A religious worldview is one that divides the world into ‘us’ and them’. This isn’t a discussion about whether you have the right to express your religion in public. It’s a question of whether you should.
“Expressing your religion” is evidently a vague term, used to justify a variety of practices varying from public readings and religious education, to extremism and bigotry. Take, for example, religious schools. A child who goes to a religious school may arguably receive a one-dimensional view of society.

Drawing on my own experiences, I have found that the administration of religious schools has little problem putting the ethos of the school before the education and wellbeing of their students. These schools are places where homosexuality can be demonised, awareness of other religions can be non-existent, and sex education is minimal. Children are impressionable and likely to accept what they are told by a person in a position of authority, like a teacher.

It is often true that the best education is to be found at a religious school, to the point where parents feel the need to fake religious commitment to give their children the best chance. Notice the number of families whose children are aged 9-11, attend church for two years, get into the school of their choice, and never return.

Wearing religious symbols is a more difficult affair altogether. When it comes to religious symbols in public, we should remember that the question is not whether such expression should be legal, but whether it is a good idea. Wearing something as seemingly insignificant as a crucifix in a public role is important because you represent a religion in whose name much harm has been done historically. One’s public display of religious affiliation
may, for that reason, be a source of discomfort or unease to others. No one should feel uncomfortable in a school or a hospital.

Religion becomes dangerous when it is more than a private matter. Currently, there is in hospitals what some might perceive as a discrepancy in uniform policy: Christian staff are not allowed to wear crucifixes, but Muslim staff are allowed to wear headscarves. Rather than pitting religious groups against each other, all staff must be treated equally through a policy of total neutrality.

For those religious people for whom public expression is an integral part of their faith, the question remains as to why such proselytising is necessary. Surely it speaks to the insecurity of a religious group that it feels that the only way to preserve its role in society is to shove its beliefs down the throat of an unsuspecting populace. Public preaching is rarely effective – if a person feels like something is missing in their lives, they will do their own research. The Internet provides an infinite resource for the religiously curious. Yelling apocalyptic messages in the street will, if anything, put people off, and only exacerbates the tensions between different groups.
In a free society, everyone should have the legal right to express their beliefs. But whether they should do so is another question. Some particular forms of expression do more harm than good.

No

Josh Peppiatt

Don’t you just hate it when people try to impose their faith on you? Isn’t it offensive and arrogant to assume you have the answers and try to share your own faith with others? Shouldn’t faith be kept private?

In 4th Week, the Christian Union are holding a week of talks for Oxford students named ‘Uncover’, which seeks to explore some of the biggest questions of life and faith, and the answers Jesus gives to those questions. Should this week be condemned as offensive, or should it be welcomed?

To start with, I would argue that sometimes, Christians share their faith in an offensive way, without listening or trying to understand other people’s positions, or being arrogant and trying to score intellectual points. If you have experienced this, I want to apologise, as this is not how we are called to live in view of the faith we profess. All people are valued by God and are therefore worthy of respect.

However, I would like to suggest that we all have a way of seeing the world that makes sense to us; we all have a faith. These beliefs profoundly affect the way we live, how we make decisions, how we form our opinions, and how we converse. Should my faith in the feminist movement be kept private? How about my faith in the scientific method? Should my faith in equal opportunities for black and ethnic minority students be kept private? It seems difficult to justify why we would distinguish between religious faith and non-religious types of faith. Indeed, what if religious aspects of my faith coincide with, and are reinforced by, my non-religious ones?

A world view is inescapable, whether it is given a recognised name like atheism, Christianity or Islam, or whether it’s individually constructed. Our world view is never purely personal. Ironically, by telling others that faith should be kept private, we are ourselves publicly expressing a faith position that faith should be kept private, thus defeating our own argument.

Surely the deeper questions that need answering is which faith enables us to respectfully engage with each other as we seek the truth together, and, ultimately, which faith is true?

A core tenet of the Christian world view is that every person is equal and precious in dignity and honour, which gives a solid basis for upholding respectful dialogue and human rights. I’m not for a moment suggesting those who aren’t Christians aren’t often much more respectful and kind than Christians, but rather, I think that other world views give no basis within themselves to guarantee a respectful approach.

And as for the question of truth, well that’s the biggest question any of us could ask. The Christian world view says that truth exists and can be known and is therefore of vital importance for each one of us. C. S. Lewis, the famous Oxford professor, put it memorably. “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.”

That’s really what the ‘Uncover’ week is all about: an invitation to start a dialogue about truth, life, and which world view is true. Two highly respected speakers will explain why they believe Christianity makes sense of our world and there will be an opportunity to ask questions and continue the conversation afterwards. We hope to see you there.

Marine Le Pen protest divides Oxford

Cherwell News Team
-
0
Marine Le Pen protest divides Oxford

Several hundred demonstrators have taken part in a protest against the appearance of far-right French Front National leader Marine Le Pen at the Oxford Union, condemning her political views as fascist, anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, and Islamophobic.

Up to 400 protesters, including students, anarchists, and antifascist campaigners, gathered at the gates of the Union on Thursday evening to protest against the platforming of the nationalist leader. Demonstrators chanted, “This is free speech, that is a platform”, gesturing towards the Oxford Union, and “Oxford Union, shame on you”.

As tensions heightened, protestors scaled the Union’s walls, hung banners on the fences, and attempted to force open the gates, chanting, “Nazi scum, here we come.” A police presence behind the Union walls prevented protesters from reaching the chamber.

OUSU BME and Anti-Racism Offi cer Nikhil Venkatesh told Cherwell, “It was really great to see so many Oxford students and residents at the protest, telling Marine Le Pen she is not welcome in our city, and showing solidarity with the groups she victimises. I hope the Union got the message.”

Divisions emerged between the various groups present at the protest. Some students snubbed those campaigning with Unite Against Fascism (UAF) because of their links with the Socialist Workers’ Party, who have been accused of rape apologism following allegations that the party attempted to cover up a sexual assault by a senior member of the party.

Slogans chanted by members of Unite Against Fascism received a muted response from some Oxford students, although UAF maintained a sizeable presence. OUSU President Louis Trup admitted to becoming entangled in a heated argument with a UAF protester.

Marine Le Pen was hurried into the chamber nearly an hour late. Cherwell understands that she had been smuggled on-site through the Purple Turtle nightclub on Frewin Court. As protesters scaled the walls, members in the Chamber were asked not to leave their seats for their own safety, and the doors were locked. Some Union members queueing to enter the event were verbally abused by protesters, who referred to those attending as “fascists” and “Nazis”.

Students queuing to attend the talk remained defiant. St Anne’s student Matthew Kirtley told Cherwell, “I believe freedom of speech is an absolute right, and the Union, as the self-described ‘last-bastion of free speech in the west’, should be able to host anyone, however distasteful. When you start saying a particular ideology is off -limits, you’re containing the limits of free discussion.”

He added, “I don’t understand how this legitimises her platform in any other way than all the rallies she gives in France. I don’t understand how her speaking at the Oxford Union is going to make her ideology more legitimised.”

Another Kellogg College student in attendance remarked, “If 25 percent of the French electorate decided she was worthy of having a say – and I don’t agree with her – then I thought I might see what she has to say.”

But Annie Teriba, former OUSU Access and Admissions officer, asserted, “This is not a debate about free speech. Le Pen has the right to say whatever she wants to say on the street, in her bedroom, in her bathroom.

“This is a debate about whether or not the Oxford Union has the right to invite in to our community someone who doesn’t believe that Muslims should be allowed in Europe, who compares Muslim prayer to Nazi occupation, who invokes the memory of the Nazis in memory of oppression, but at the same time is incredibly anti-Semitic.”

Le Pen began her talk in response to the protesters, telling the Chamber, “Freedom is the ability to say what you think without being in fear.” She spoke of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, referring to Islamic fundamentalists as “barbarians”. On the issue of terrorism, she stated, “We need to regain the control of our borders in France. The border must be a filter and not a wall”. In questions, she attracted controversy when she opined, “Islam is very healthy but there are cancerous cells surrounding it,” going on to comment, “Multi-cultural societies often become multi-conflicted societies.”

UAF joint national secretary Weyman Bennett, attending the protest, told Cherwell, “The Oxford Union is going to give a lot of respectability to the Front National, and they’re going to use that respectability to bolster fascist organisations, who will in the long run remove all democratic values. I think that because she so has much support in France, it is even more dangerous that she should be given a platform. No platform policies prevent these people from building a following in universities.”

The protest followed a mild controversy on Wednesday, when OUSU Council mandated President Louis Trup to inform all students by email that the protests were due to take place. Trup opposed the move, including in the email a link to his post on OUSU.org, where he apologised for sending the email to people who “do not care about any of this”. He later clarified to Cherwell, “I apologised to the people who received the email and don’t care because I don’t think this warranted a special email.”

The same motion mandated Trup to write a letter to the Oxford Union about Le Pen’s appearance. The motion stated that the letter, to be addressed to the Union’s Standing Committee, should condemn the views of Le Pen, and ask the Union to refrain from inviting such speakers in the future.

Trup commented, “I am glad there was a protest because I think it is important that Le Pen’s racism is condemned.”

Yvonne Owuor: sometimes people are places too

Paul Ostwald
-
0
Yvonne Owuor: sometimes people are places too

Sheltered from the blazing Kenyan sun by trees that have witnessed times of both colonisation and revolution, Café Moniko’s is where Kenya’s intellectual Bohème meets. Yvonne Owuor’s red jacket glows in the afternoon light as she strides towards a free table in a silent corner of the café. Her gestures are energetic but measured. She is passionate about her characters and the state of her nation.

Her first novel, Dust, which has just been released, focuses on the death of a young man, shot by police officers in Nairobi’s violent streets during the 2007 upheaval, and the stories it triggers about the equally young nation. Having previously written about her country’s history only in short stories, she explains, “When I set out to write Dust I was very clear about what it should be. But then, when Kenya exploded in late 2007, the story acquired its own life and it wanted to be told.” Owuor describes the writing as a very natural process, noting, “Something was unleashed and suddenly all the characters began telling me their own stories.” This can be seen in her relationship with her characters, whom she describes as being “very musical – before I see them I hear their music, the songs they love and the ones they hate. Each character tells their own, different story of fear, longing and admiration. It took me seven years to put it all down on paper.”

Every once in a while during our interview, Owuor halts to scribble an idea into her notebook, each question that I ask her releasing a stream of words. This clashes with the sentiment expressed in the novel by the young man’s father, who notes that three languages have defined Kenya since its independence: English, Swahili and Silence. Owuor comments, “We Kenyans are very good at covering our rage up with silence,” explaining how, “since the independence, people were infuriated, about the land others had stolen, the people that had gone unpunished and the vile things that happened decades ago.” In Dust, she collects these stories. She asks, “How come nobody ever said anything? The rage had acquired a space of silence in which it was unnoticed – it was kept and sustained for decades. Yes, we’re good with silences. It might be the most Kenyan language of all three.” In Owuor’s novel, these stories are finally given space.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%10975%%[/mm-hide-text] 

 

The characters’ relationship with their country is difficult, the stories raised forcing them to question their allegiance in confronting ‘the Kenyan ideal’. In terms of its history, she argues, Kenya “did not treat these memories the way it should have”. History was recently removed from the Kenyan syllabus, which means, she says, “Some feel detached from their heritage.” In the book, this attitude is embodied by the protagonist’s sister, Ajani. Owuor relates, “On returning to Nairobi, [following her brother’s death] she seeks something that’s supposed to make her feel complete. She had experienced the world through her brother, and now she’s discovering herself through his death, the empty space he’s left. There is a young generation that has lost whatever it was that defined them. All of them have a place of longing, somewhere they want to return. But then she discovers that sometimes people can be places, too.”

The book seems, then, to be asking a question of what endures, the characters only finding consolation through the prospect of starting over again. “Yes, they do,” agrees Owuor. But she also notes, “Our memory is like dust [and] things evaporate – everything also begins with dust. And that’s a message not only to the Kenyan people.” It is this that allows the characters in her novel to find some sort of peace. Owuor offers a perspective on the importance of forgiveness that is especially poignant when considered in the context of her country’s history.

In her words, “There’s a difference between forgiving and simply forgetting. What happens with the power and energy of forgiving is that when you meet that particular memory, you don’t meet it armed to kill, you may meet it to say, ‘You’re there. That’s your shape, that’s who you are.’ The chance to start all over again – and our memories – are what defines us, it might be all we have. And it’s all we need.”

It’s easy to see why Dust was celebrated by the New York Times and the Washington Post as a “remarkable novel with a brave healing voice” and listed among the ‘50 top books of 2014’. It is a brilliant novel from a writer who deserves far more attention outside of the place that she describes, with the book currently nominated for the Folio Prize.

David vs Goliath: can Syriza change the status quo?

Harry Gosling
-
0
David vs Goliath: can Syriza change the status quo?

The political game in Europe is changing. Voters’ support is shifting from the incumbent centrists to parties which represent the extremes of the political spectrum. UKIP in Britain, the National Front in France and Podemos in Spain are just some examples of more radical parties gaining momentum.

Yet until January 25th, none of Europe’s more radical parties had achieved a major breakthrough. Certainly none had managed to seize the reins of government. The rise to power of the populist left-wing party Syriza, in Greece, has changed this. The question remains, however, as to what else will change? The mandate given to Syriza by the Greek people is for its leader, Alexis Tsipras, to renegotiate Greece’s bailout conditions; write down half of the country’s public debt; and curtail austerity – all while keeping Greece in the Euro. Is that an impossible mandate?

Greece cannot default on its debt since this would effectively result in it leaving the Euro – an outcome that the majority of Greeks do not want, and an outcome that would almost certainly be more harmful to Greece’s economic prospects than the current austerity programme.

Nor can the rest of the Eurozone agree to write down Greek debt. Angela Merkel ruled this out last weekend, saying that this would be equivalent to a handout from taxpayers in other Eurozone countries, many of whom are suffering from their own recessions. Such an act would be tantamount to pressing the political self-destruct button. It would also embolden other heavily indebted southern European countries to make similar deals, leading to uncertainty in the markets.

Regardless of the impossibility of Tsipras’ mandate, the Greek Prime Minister cannot renege on his election promises. The coalition agreement between Syriza and the right-wing Independent Greeks party was formed on the premise of debt reduction. Failure to achieve this will lead to the collapse of the government or a sudden default and a Greek exit from the Euro which nobody wants.

The interests of the Greek government appear irreconcilable with those of the troika – the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF – as well as with the interests of much of Northern Europe. Who will win the day?

As José Ignacio Torreblanca of the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank argues, populist political parties have changed the nature of the political game. Frustration with an ‘out-of-touch elite’ has fuelled the advance of outsider populist parties across Europe. Tsipras has played the role of the outsider well, but can he display the statesmanship required of an insider?

If Tsipras cannot secure concessions, he will still have to persuade the Greek electorate that debts have somehow been reduced. Opaque statements will be on the agenda, and compromise rather than change will be the theme of the day.

What does all this mean for the populist parties vying for power across Europe? The example shown by Greece will make one thing clear: an electoral mandate does not make it easy to change the status quo. Tsipras and his party are likely to fail to achieve their stated aims, and this will send a message to voters, particularly those in the southern Eurozone countries, that the end of austerity is not an election away.

In the end, power remains in the hands of European political insiders and the election of Syriza in Greece, while seemingly momentous, will do little to change that. On this occasion, David cannot defeat Goliath.

Academics condemn "repressive" Counter-Terrorism Bill

Marianna Spring
-
0
Academics condemn "repressive" Counter-Terrorism Bill

Oxford professors have joined 500 academics in signing an open letter published in The Guardian that condemned the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill currently being debated in parliament.

The letter, which included signatures from Oxford academics, declares that the bill would be “a threat to freedom of speech at Universities”, as well as “an unlawful and unenforceable duty on educational institutions and staff .”

The controversial bill, which seeks to curb campus extremism as one of its aims, has caused considerable debate, both within Oxford University and on the national stage. The letter declares, “One of the purposes of post-compulsory education is to foster critical thinking in staff , students, and society more widely. Our universities and colleges are centres for debate and open discussion, where received wisdom can be challenged and controversial ideas put forward in the spirit of academic endeavour.

“The best response to acts of terror against UK civilians is to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is eff ectively challenged. Ensuring colleges and universities can continue to debate difficult and unpopular issues is a vital part of this.”

After branding the “draconian crackdown” as both “unnecessary” and “ill-conceived”, the academics called on the government to reconsider attempts to tackle extremism in the UK that do not compromise academic freedom.

One of the signatories, Oxford academic Professor Robin Cohen, a former Director of the International Migration Institute, told Cherwell, “One of the odious provisions is that visiting speakers will be required to submit their presentations two weeks in advance. This is a basic violation of academic freedom. Academics are not automata. They think and develop their ideas as they go.

“It is an even more horrible thought that Oxford academics will be obliged to report external speakers who have views considered to be advocating ‘non-violent extremism’ and who are thought to challenge democracy and individual liberty.”

With regards to the legislation, Oxford University commented, “Individual academics from Oxford have already made it clear that they have concerns about the Bill. The University is monitoring events with interest.”

The Home Office told Cherwell, “We must ensure that poisonous, divisive ideologies are not allowed to spread, including through our universities.

“There is no contradiction between promoting freedom of speech and safeguarding the interests and well-being of students, staff and the wider community. Universities UK already provides guidance to help institutions develop extremist speaker policies.

“The measures in the Bill will build on these existing arrangements and ensure Prevent is delivered to a consistent standard across the country. This is particularly important in areas where terrorism is of the most concern but we are clear that all areas need to understand the local threat and take action to address it.”

Interview: Paris Lees

Niamh Mcintyre
-
0
Interview: Paris Lees

I’m saying goodbye to Paris Lees after a long phone call. She replies, “Oh God, don’t get me in trouble with all the other feminists! Make sure I sound reasonable!” It’s a lighthearted remark, but actually it reveals a lot about why Lees has been so successful as a writer, an activist, an advocate, and, indeed, a feminist.
Paris Lees scrutinises feminism from a whole range of perspectives: she’s different from “all the other feminists” in the public eye. She’s been in prison, she’s transgender, she’s from a working class background, she’s open about having been a sex worker. “My thoughts on, and my space in, feminism is informed by the fact I am transgender,” she tells me. “But it’s also very much informed by the fact that I’m common. I’m from a really run down and working class part of Nottingham, I was born and raised on a council estate.” More recently, she’s produced programmes for Radio One, writes for VICE, and has led campaigns for better trans representation in the media. Her struggle for justice for trans people led to her being crowned ‘Most Influential LGBT Person of the Year’ in 2013’s Pink List.

I start our conversation about feminism by asking her about ‘sex positivity’. For those who aren’t familiar with the term, it’s a reaction to feminists who object to porn, to sex work, to BDSM, to whatever they consider involves women “objectifying themselves”. Sex-positive feminism, on the contrary, says that your body is yours to celebrate. If you want to model topless on Page 3, great – the only person who is in control of your sexuality is you.

Lees talks a lot about sex. Her writing is a joyful celebration of the mess, the heat and the smell of sex: one article for VICE is entitled, ‘Why I’m So Proud to Be A ‘Promiscuous’ Slag’.

“I’ve always been a very sexual person,” Paris tells me. “I’ve always been pro-sex without really articulating it in that way. So it was really empowering and refreshing for me that there was a political framework or a movement which did articulate that. For me, sex-positivity means rejecting shame.

“This is why celebrating sex is an integral part of my feminism. It’s about completely owning your body, conceding to no one the power to regulate or police it. It’s about autonomy, saying this is my body and I’ll do what I want with it.”

The conversation naturally moves on to sex-positivity in relation to more mainstream, middle class feminism. I ask Lees about her thoughts on the No More Page Three campaign, which, whilst enjoying massive popular support, is also divisive in feminist communities due to its sometimes slut-shaming tone, and the unfortunate implication that women who choose to model cannot do so of their own free will being seen as alienating.

This undermining of choice is clearly something that troubles Lees. “Basically, I don’t like attacking other women. Feminists shouldn’t knock people down.” However, despite this discomfort, she’s also understanding of the campaign’s position, saying, “I think ultimately we’re all just trying to do what we think is right. And I don’t completely disagree with some of the thinking behind the range of campaigns that I would call prudish which have taken off recently. My solution to the concerns people have about Page 3, however, would be to have a Page 5 with a naked guy on it.”

In general, it seems she’s in favour of more nakedness, rather than less. “Personally I’m much more into the #freethenipple campaign. There’s no reason why a woman shouldn’t pose naked in The Sun – if anything we should be campaigning for more diversity, and more people being allowed to express their sexuality.”

The ‘prudish’ campaigns Lees talks about are led by middle class white women: feminism is, quite rightly, often criticized for being exclusionary to those who don’t fit this mould. She provoked the wrath of many feminists in one article, informed by a working class perspective, entitled ‘I Love Wolf-Whistles and Cat-Calls: Am I a Bad Feminist?’

She’s keen to explain that she wasn’t trying to justifying cat-calling as a practice in general. “People were saying that I was excusing rape culture and condoning street harassment. And I absolutely wasn’t!” she insists.

“I was saying: this is how I feel about something, this is my experience and how do I square that with being a feminist?” Here Lees returns to her working class background as the reason for such violent reactions to her article, saying, “I’m not claiming to speak on behalf of all working class people. But before writing the piece, I called up a lot of the working class women that I know: my sister, my mum, my friends from Nottingham. And I asked them how they felt. And the language that they used wasn’t the kind of sophisticated language that you read in the New Statesman or whatever. It was more, ‘Sometimes it annoys me but it’s a compliment, innit.’”

This is where, for Lees, feminist campaigning and activism falls short. Sometimes, feminists who claim to be concerned for the oppression of working class women simply forget to consult or listen to them. “And actually,” she says, “if you do speak to these women, some are going to say [cat-calling] annoys them and some are going to say they like it. And their opinions are just as valid as somebody who went to Oxford and has developed a kind of theoretical, academic opposition to something. In today’s feminist movement, we’re just not hearing working class women’s voices.”

Lees wants to make feminists more selfcritical, more aware of their prejudices and privileges, more inclusive. “Sometimes, I read some of the things that these middle class feminists are writing, the things they’re getting mad about, and I just think ‘Are you for fucking real? Seriously, this is what you’re bothered about?’”

I ask her for an example, and she refers to an article by Caroline Criado-Perez which objected to the current application of the term ‘cisgender’ (identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth). “When I see [her] writing about the use of the word ‘cis’, I think, just get over yourself! It’s just a word – is that the most important thing you’ve got to sit down and write about today?”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11009%%[/mm-hide-text] 

We’ve talked a lot about the way in which class informs Lees’ theory of feminism. I now ask her more about her own personal experience. I pick up on a comment she made earlier, describing herself as “upwardly mobile”. Does she think she’s stayed true to her working class principles? Has she felt any pressure to mould herself to the new environments she’s found herself in?

“Certainly, it’s been a real journey for me,” she says, “it’s been such an abrupt change. I’m doing things like Radio 4, I’m being invited to write for The Guardian and stuff.’”

Now, of course, Lees is pushing the boundaries of the kind of voices we hear on television, directly, through her own work, and in her advocacy for better representation of other voices which have traditionally been silenced. I ask her if there’s been any assimilation, if she’s felt any pressure to conform to the parameters of her new public, middle class role. “It’s weird, certainly. I’ll always be working g class in my roots but it would be ridiculous to say that the world I live in now doesn’t impact on who I am. It’s a complex identity because, to all intents and purposes, I am a middle class person now. I shop in Waitrose and John Lewis. I read books, I have a role in intellectual life, I have a role in public life.I don’t have to move in working class circles.”

And yet despite the need to conform, to speak in a certain way, Lees says that she still fights to assert her identity within middle class institutions.
She tells me about her appearance on Question Time, saying, “I initially thought that I should wear something posh. But then I thought, you know what, fuck it, it’s Halloween and I want to wear my skeleton top! And I did, and it was great. So it’s about balancing who you’re talking to with staying true to yourself. And I like to think I’ve done okay with that.”

Our interview concludes neatly where we started, with a critique of contemporary Western feminism. Lees is talking about TERFs, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, those who do not accept that transgender women are women and who often actively campaign against access to healthcare for trans people.

“To be honest, I try to ignore them. They’re bigots. It really sickens me and it’s really disappointing to see it in the feminist movement. Because actually, there is no such thing as a conflict between the push for equal rights for women and the push for equal rights for transgender people. It really upsets me when feminists engage with people who have abhorrent views, like Julie Bindel, for example, who supports reparative care for trans people. To be honest, I hope that kind of feminism is dying out.”

Listening to Lees, I’m also inclined to be optimistic. Germaine Greer might still be invited to spout hatred at the Cambridge Union and other such venues, but Lees is the face of a new kind of feminism, an intersectional philosophy which struggles relentlessly for the liberation of all oppressed genders, races, orientations, and classes.

The Campaign: Cuntry Living

Niamh Mcintyre
-
0
The Campaign: Cuntry Living

Cuntry Living is Oxford’s only termly feminist zine. In an institution which has for centuries privileged the white cis men who crowd the walls of our dining halls, we aim to carve out a space for the voices of women and minority genders to make themselves heard. We’ve aimed to create a space for cunts.

We’re playfully reclaiming the word ‘cunt’. DISCLAIMER: the term ‘cunt’ does not imply that all women have vaginas. Cunts can be any, gender, race, sexual orientation, age, or ability, so long as they wholeheartedly subscribe to the declaration which we include inside the cover of every zine: a cunt must self-identify, loudly and proudly, as a feminist.

We also passionately believe that feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit. The oppression of women should be contextualized in terms of kyriarchal power structures: cunts should struggle against racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, and transphobia and understand connections between these struggles, as well as being self-critical, and recognising both our own privileges and the privileges of many of the women who promote mainstream pop-feminism. We also stand for anticapitalist feminism because of the exploitation of the labour force and the current pursuit of austerity that disproportionately affects women.

For us, Cuntry Living is a space in which we challenge our oppression creatively and artistically, bringing together Oxford’s feminist voices to create a community of radical dissent and feminist celebration. We totally encourage all you great feminist allies who identify as men to submit but we also want to reserve the majority of the space for work by self-identifying women and transfeminine students.

If I’ve convinced you that life as a cunt is loads of fun, we always want people to get involved however they can! We publish articles, fiction, poetry, artwork: anything at all which grabs the patriarchy by its balls or anything that would make Brendan O’Neill’s blood boil.

We’d also love some help putting the actual zine together! We’ll be running ‘cut and stick’ sessions on February 23rd and 24th (check Facebook for more info), where we make collages to accompany the articles, and eat loads of chocolate while listening to Cassie, Beyoncé and Eve (no Meghan Trainor).

We’re still accepting submissions for our Hilary issue so if you want to join the swelling ranks of cunts then email [email protected] with a pitch.

Interview: Sama Dizayee

Mary Reader
-
0
Interview: Sama Dizayee

Arundhati Roy once said, “There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” Talking to Sama Dizayee, there is a very real sense in which her project as a journalist is to empower the disempowered, hear the supposedly ‘voiceless’, and write about the unwritten.

Born in Baghdad, she has lived through three wars in Iraq and watched her country being torn apart by ethnic division and foreign intervention. But she has been a ‘witness’ in more ways than one. From a young age, she felt an insuppressible urge to document not only acts of bloodshed, turmoil, and corruption, but also the often omitted acts of community, reconciliation, and charity.

She recounts the defining moment when she knew she wanted to be a journalist. At the age of 15, there was an explosion 50 metres down her street. Against her mother’s instructions, she couldn’t resist going outside to see what had happened. “I was always adventurous,” she smiles. “When I went outside, I just thought, I want to grab my camera and film this because I want to share what happened. I want to share the torture that is happening to these people, how many people are dying. And I want to show how others are helping each other, are risking their lives, to put the wounded in cars and take them to hospital.”

She expresses frustration that the media “never talked about the community that risked their lives. They never mentioned that. It was like the news was trying to divide people rather than report what actually happened.”

Following the incident, she started to write a diary documenting her experiences. “That was the moment I realised I just want to keep writing, and I want the world to see what I write.”

She tells me, “The media is biased. We all know that. They ignore some stories like, you know, what’s happening in Nigeria.” And while Dizayee stands with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, she compares the 12 victims there with the 2,000 killed by Boko Haram, saying, “It’s a massacre… and you don’t see it in the headlines.”

“And I am sad to see the news like that… Because our job as journalists is to cover everything – to tell the world everything about what’s going on in the world. For instance, since the US soldiers left Iraq, you barely see Iraq in the news – it became something people didn’t want to talk about.” Under the Saddam Hussein regime, the Western media focused on foreign policy issues like WMDs, rather than human rights violations. “They really weren’t talking about the people…”

There seems to be a definite sense in which white lives matter more in Western media. When I ask whether she thinks that the Middle East is ‘othered’ or ‘orientalised’ in the media, she says it is dismissed as a “conflicted” area. “Like for example everywhere in the news you hear them talking about Lebanon as a conflicted country. But also, I go to Beirut on a really regular basis and we party like no place else! I swear to you!” It seems that ethnic conflict in Lebanon has even had a kind of cathartic effect, ultimately unifying communities. “Trust me, they live like it’s the last day of their life. They’ve got to a point where they’re like, ‘OK, we might be living today and tomorrow we might die. So what do we want to do? Do we want to sit at home and wait for it? No! We want to keep going with our lives.’ And you know, they really do!”

A central theme for Dizayee seems to be the balance between the positive and the negative. In being a witness to her country’s conflict, she is also determined to be a witness to its reconciliation. “I will keep writing until I see my country unified. And that is possible, if we come together, with other people around the world. You have to inform people: keep writing, keep trying.”

I’m intrigued to find out whether she feels being a woman impacts upon her career. With a wry smile, she says, “Definitely. Because we’re women, and when you start writing something, people say, ‘well that’s because she’s a woman’.” She reflects on how women are not expected to be able to cope with risky or dangerous situations. “Even my family right now doesn’t want me to go back to Iraq. But if it was my brother and
he was a journalist, they would have let him go, because he’s a man – he can survive these situations.”

Dizayee rejects these assumptions, saying, “Journalists are journalists to tell stories – to show the real images to the people, not to be scared. Because if you are supposed to be a journalist, and especially if you choose to be in a conflict zone, or you choose to be a war correspondent, then you know what you’re getting into. I think you should fight for it. You should fight for your stories.”

Words are like oxygen to Dizayee. “This pen,” she gestures metaphorically, “has been my friend for 12 years.” Her eyes shine as she talks about writing. “I love it, – because that’s how I feel alive.”

Is the pen really mightier than the sword? It might not seem so to those who are victims of bloodshed and oppression across the world. But as Dizayee symbolically throws hers into the audience at the end of her speech, we can only hope that a new surge of ink will blot the Western narrative of a blood-stained, orientalised Middle East into obscurity.

OxStew: Residents demand removal of ‘spires’ blocking view

Barty Anderson
-
0
OxStew: Residents demand removal of ‘spires’ blocking view

In what is rapidly becoming a row between town and gown, angry locals have joined forces with conservation enthusiasts to campaign against the ‘dreaming spires’ that they say are ‘hideous’ additions to Oxford’s skyline. Such edifices, commissioned over hundreds of years at an enormous cost to the University, are invariably in the centre of the city – where, according to critics, they do the most damage to its famous silhouette. Moreover, it is contended that many spires were built without an adequate consultation period from the relevant planning authorities.

The offending buildings include the imposing Radcliffe Camera, built in the Eighteenth Century when planning permission was significantly more relaxed, and Christ Church’s Tom Tower, which has been criticised as “ruining the view over the beautiful, unspoilt Christ Church Meadows”. The iconic Sheldonian Theatre, campaigners have argued, is “literally a crime against everything beautiful in the universe”.

Benjamin Mapplethorpe, a Summertown resident, told The Oxstew, “How dare the University just go ahead and, over the course of a millennium, arrogantly transform a few mud huts at a crossroad into one of the splendours of western aesthetic and intellectual achievement! How dare they! Without Oxford City, where on earth would Oxford University be? Probably in Reading or something. They should count themselves lucky.”

“I think it’s outrageous,” added Meredith Folkenshaw, an environmental activist from Luton. “Back in 1087, Oxford was such a gorgeous place to come for a picnic – all wooden bridges and open drainage systems.

“Now, the University’s throwing its weight around and is refusing to pull down or even apologise for the late-gothic stone masterpieces ruining the view.”

Opinion has so far been divided as to the right way forward on the matter. Townsfolk, who at the time of writing were chaining themselves to the bicycle racks outside the University’s Wellington Square offices and singing ‘We shall overcome’, favour the immediate detonation of any building taller than a loft-converted semidetached house in Jericho.

The City Council, nervous of accusations that they may have dropped their guard for a few centuries or so, propose that the offending buildings be repainted in camouflage, so as to blend in better with the surrounding countryside. The University continues to reject these suggestions, arguing that its spires are peerless examples of medieval wealth distribution inequalities.

Word of the dispute has even reached parliament, where one MP told the media, “I have no idea what I am talking about, so please do not listen to any of my opinions on the matter, or indeed on any other matter.”

If the University’s hand is forced into removing many of the buildings, the resulting displaced students and fellows are expected to have to camp in Port Meadow until a more permanent solution is reached.

One undergraduate remarked, “Well, I’d miss the May Morning singing from the top of Magdalen Tower, but I am also very attracted by the idea of all 23,000 of us living in the splendid unspoilt Arcadia that is Port Meadow, which of course has remained untouched by human hand since the beginning of time.”

A beginner’s guide to foot fetishism

Rhiannon Gibbs-Harris
-
0
A beginner’s guide to foot fetishism

I first met Erica, a 20 year old podophile, online, through a mutual friend. We chatted a bit before meeting in person and I was amazed at how much she told me, a virtual stranger, about herself. She is a 21 year old undergraduate who is in a long term relationship with another student and is a tall, well-dressed, and somewhat intellectual woman who has a huge range of interests and otherwise a fairly normal university lifestyle apart from the fact that she is a foot fetishist. When I told people I was interviewing a foot fetishist, I was astonished at how many people at least know, or know of, a foot fetishist. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, since foot fetishism is one of the most common fetishes but it isn’t a huge part of mainstream dialogue about BDSM, despite foot-licking and toe sucking being in the 50 Shades of Grey novels and the fact that lots of famous people, including Elvis and Pharell, have openly admitted to having foot fetishes.  However, no one I spoke to would admit to being a foot fetishist and there were quite a few jokes about dirty old men, so I guess people aren’t so liberal about fetishes and BDSM as one tends to think they are.

Erica was almost the exact antithesis of a dirty old man. The only unusual aspect of Erica’s life is the fact that she is aroused by touching, smelling, and generally interacting with feet and feet-related things, like shoes and socks. Erica and her girlfriend often spend hours looking at shoes and Erica often enjoys giving Maddie (her girlfriend) foot massages. She also, like many of the stereotypes suggest, enjoys sweaty tennis shoes and used socks. She also told me about how she enjoys having her back massaged with feet instead of hands.

The fact that foot fetishism is considered so subversive does seem odd to me, especially since it has a long history in literature and doesn’t generally involve violence. After having explained that to her, Erica said that she still wanted to be anonymous (Erica is a pseudonym and some of the details in this piece have been altered so that she can remain unidentifiable) and I have to say, I really did wonder why.

Apparently even close friends do not know and she said she would never try to explain it to her parents. I ask if she would ever tell her friends and she says that she may one day but that she is currently still uncomfortable with the idea. I am interested in this fact because Erica is openly lesbian and has been since she was thirteen and so it seemed odd that she wouldn’t tell her friends about what she considers a fundamental aspect of her sexuality.

Next, I asked if she felt that coming out as a lesbian woman was comparable to coming out as a foot fetishist and she explained that it was because she was a lesbian woman that she was not open about her foot fetish.

According to Erica, both the LGBTQIA+ and the BDSM communities are extremely accepting of the other but because mainstream depictions of BDSM are so often heteronormative, she feels that the larger society of straight, vanilla people would absolutely not accept her. She felt that it was far easier to hide her foot fetishism than her sexuality so she doesn’t discuss it with anyone apart from her girlfriend. Basically, she said that being a foot fetishist and a lesbian means that people are twice as likely to discriminate against her, so it is possible that coming out as a foot fetishist and coming out as a lesbian are analogous but, in her case, they aren’t at all.

A lot of time has been spent attempting to understand the psychology of fetish with people like Freud weighing in on why people have fetishes. And, it is important to say that psychology has said that people who practise BDSM are not mentally ill.

But still, because I am not a psychoanalyser or even close to one, I really didn’t want to attempt trying to psychoanalyse Erica and I felt (and feel) that it would be entirely inappropriate and offensive to do so.

Erica feels that she works through some of her own personal past experiences through kink and since it helps her feel better, and be more confident it seems ridiculous to judge her.

Erica enjoys sex and the way she has sex does not hurt, bother, or annoy anyone else, so why should I, or anyone else, have any say in how she has sex?

In my opinion, this is a fairly mild kink but it is very interesting that it is so stigmatized by society

1...1,2211,2221,223...2,490Page 1,222 of 2,490

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley