Page 1248 – Cherwell

The butcher and the salesman

Opinion

Charlotte Mclean

-

11th December 2014

Low self esteem, anxiety, poor life quality and discontent with body image plague us all to different extents. These can ruin our ability to enjoy our lives. And, according to the claims of some cosmetic surgery practices, these are easily fixable problems. Reasons a healthy person chooses to undergo cosmetic surgery are complex and highly personal, but problems such as these often are cited as reasons for doing so. Scientific studies can even be trotted out to show that plastic surgery can, at least sometimes, make people happier. Even if we disregard the important evidence which acts as a balance to this, hiding behind a screen of scientific claims does not justify promoting cosmetic surgery as a positive “solution”.

Regardless of whether said surgery does improve body image or self-esteem, it sidesteps the reasons why people do this to themselves in the first place. Because we are consistently told both explicitly and implicitly that appearance is what matters, cosmetic surgery seems like the magic solution. Perhaps people do feel better after surgery, because they feel a little closer to fulfilling an absurd concept that we should value ourselves on our appearance, that we need to be “attractive” to get by, and that we should aspire to the totally unrealistic body expectations fed to us by the media.

Cosmetic surgery bypasses the question of why someone might feel unhappy or anxious because of the way they look, offering an imperfect solution to a deep-seated societal problem. Indeed cosmetic surgery is not just an imperfect solution, it actively worsens the state of affairs by suggesting that beauty is a tangible thing to be achieved.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10687%%[/mm-hide-text]

Instead of cutting ourselves to look more like an idealized, fictional and destructive concept of beauty, we need to value ourselves on more than how we look. If we learn to value ourselves for more stable and non-relative factors, we can feel good about ourselves without surgery. Also, the idea that a standardized ideal of beauty exists is not only a fallacy, but one which is actively promoted by capitalism. It encourages continued purchase of products and procedures which promise to give an end result that can never be achieved; the perfect product strategy.

It is often forgotten that these procedures do carry risk, often quite serious risk. A world which allows healthy people to endanger their lives by essentially disfiguring their bodies in order to conform to an insidious and oppressive beauty ideal is as worrying as it is saddening.

Finally, cosmetic surgery is, simply put, sexist. Although the number of men undergoing cosmetic surgery is on the rise, the majority of patients are still women. This reflects the extreme pressure put on women to “look good”, and the message that the most important thing about a woman is her appearance.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10688%%[/mm-hide-text]

It is not surprising that patients report better self esteem after surgery in some cases, given the circumstances. Cosmetic surgery is not an empowering solution to the insistence that beauty should and could be achieved. It undermines the idea that people are of worth whatever they look like. This is the case not only because they look great just as they are (since “beauty” is entirely subjective), but primarily because people are more than just their outer shell.

Instead of appeasing our anxieties by butchering ourselves, we need to think about why we continue to value appearance so highly, and still cling to the myth that “beauty” is absolute. This is not a pointless question to be pondered in the pub. People are hurting and endangering themselves because of it. We must fight against the sentiment encapsulated in that famous French proverb that “one must suffer to be beautiful”. We must fight against the idea that one must look a certain way to matter as a human being.

Bar Review: St Hilda’s

The Bar Review Team

-

10th December 2014

0

Guy de Maupassant used to have lunch on the second floor of the Eiffel Tower because it was the only place in Paris where he didn’t actually have to look at the Eiffel Tower. Although Maupassant and I disagree on our opinions on the iconic tourist spot, I can most definitely relate to what he’s saying. St Hilda’s College itself looks a lot like a cross between a ‘60s cruise ship’s cabin and a set from The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Even the fact that I am on the river side cannot make up for some very bad architectural planning.

So I was pleasantly surprised by how nice the Hilda’s bar is, mainly since I did not have to look at the rest of Hilda’s anymore– a major advantage of this subterranean bar. The décor of the room is fairly minimal, but it retains a modern style, which makes practical sense. The space is well-designed to allow the majority of drinkers to stay in the main hall, but if you want a more intimate spot to chat, play pool or watch TV you can move into the little rooms at the back. It may feel a little like a rural community hall but that weird-guy-from-lectures-who-thinks-he’s-a-Marxist-revolutionary-despite-wearing-Ralph-Lauren is still here to remind that yes, you most definitely are in Oxford. In the main part of the bar there are a few tables and chairs, as well as leather bench seats on the sides of the bar, but most people seem to prefer standing which is actually a good idea, because, for a Tuesday night, it was fairly busy.

The bar is, I believe, one of the very few in Oxford that is student-run, and I kind of liked the well-chosen liquor selection behind the bar which was mostly still wrapped in Sainsbury’s plastic bags. The staff members were eager to please and good for chat but still professional despite being students themselves. The range of drinks is actually impressive for what is quite a small bar and the spirits they have are good quality- I didn’t feel like I was being ripped off at all. Also, as everyone always says, the prices are some of the best in Oxford and are significantly cheaper than those in some renovated “dive bar” in Cowley which your asshole friends who smoke cloves think is cool. It is, admittedly, a bit of a walk from the centre of town to Hilda’s, but if you live in Cowley I can see no real reason why you wouldn’t go for a cheap pint, a nice bar and friendly people.

If Thursday Night Bridge is your night then you probably aren’t going to come here and pay for a taxi but if you’re pre-drinking for the O2 then this is far better value than most of what Cowley has to offer. This bar easily rivals Balliol’s, and isn’t as crowded or claustrophobic. Just try to avoid looking at the rest of the buildings on your way out.

Dining club’s bad taste lingers

Opinion

Tom Robinson

-

9th December 2014

0

Last Thursday, the Gridiron Club dining society, otherwise known as ‘The Grid’, failed in its attempt to admit women despite a majority voting in favour. Without passing the two-thirds vote threshold needed to change the society’s rules, the club remains exclusively male.

That dining clubs such as the Grid still exist at Oxford University is baffling enough. That gender-segregated clubs still persist is all the more disturbing. At a time when the University and the majority of its students endeavour to shirk the unhelpful view of Oxford as exclusive and elitist, societies such as the Grid only reinforce this false and damaging stereotype.

The realisation by some within the society that their written prohibition of female members threatens to push their organisation into obscurity is telling of that very society’s current irrelevance. To think of the failed vote as a meaningful attempt at modernisation is at best naïve. All it demonstrates is just how out of touch such clubs are with the contemporary Oxford University.

Often criticised for being heavily comprised of alumni of prominent public schools within the UK, dining clubs are backward relics in an increasingly diverse and modern student environment. As two members of the Grid conceded before the vote, the all-male membership of the group is “an anachronism in an Oxford that is advancing”.

Indeed, on arriving at Oxford University, I discovered that these dining societies long immortalised in popular culture are less mysterious and interesting than I originally thought. Groups of male students dressed in awkward clothing descending on restaurants with wine in hand just isn’t as romantic in real life as it is in our imagination.

But even if the clubs are much more bland than we sometimes allow ourselves to think, the folklore surrounding these groups persists. That in itself is enough to taint an outsider’s perception of the University.

There will be those who argue that Oxford University is so full of quirky, out-dated traditions not in keeping with the modern times that to pick on dining clubs seems unfair. If we are going to denounce dining clubs, they say, then we should also denounce matriculation, May Day, subfusc and croquet.

But those traditions are hugely different from the traditional dining clubs existing at Oxford University. Whereas our quirky traditions are non-exclusionary and inert — every student matriculates, has the opportunity to revel on May Day, dress for exams and try their hand at unusual sports — dining clubs are exclusive and deliberately inaccessible to the majority of students.

What is worse, however, than the failure to allow female members into the Grid is the fact that the society thinks female members would want to join in the first place. We have seen recently just how fierce the battle is for the respect and equality of genders within the University. Yet the very foundations of the Gridiron Club that exists today were conceived in a society that devalued and subordinated the role and rights of women.

That dining clubs continue to exist under the same rules, suggests to me that such exclusive groups are on a downwards spiral to irrelevance. It is partially surprising considering it’s 2014 that enough members were ready to vote against the inclusion of women. But to think that women would want to join the society in the first place is, in my opinion, mildly amusing. Societies like the Grid are so far removed from the progress that has been made at this University, and so steeped historically in themes of male-exclusivity, that even if the motion had passed I struggle to imagine there being a strong demand from women for entry.

The typical Oxford student today is, I hope, deeply concerned about access to the University. Getting into Oxford is a tough process riddled with uncertainty (from college selection through to interviews). That you got in and others didn’t is a testament to yourself only if the application process is accessible. For this reason at least, the typical student should care about equality and openness. Attempts to redeem dining clubs by opening their membership to women may technically make them open to a broader array of individuals, but they remain inherently exclusive. That broad exclusivity, let alone the gender restriction, is anathema to modern sentiment at the University.

Dining clubs are a persistent thorn in the side of the ‘modern’ Oxford University. As our University continues to modernise and break down the Oxford stereotype, dining clubs will only fall further and further into obscurity.

PM responds to letter calling for closure of Campsfield

News

Fatima Al-Kassab

-

8th December 2014

0

PM responds to letter calling for closure of Campsfield

Prime Minister David Cameron has responded to an open letter from 21 local organizations urging him not to expand Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre in Kidlington.

Calling for the immediate release of all Campsfield detainees and the withdrawal of plans to expand the detention centre, the letter highlighted cases such as the death of one 84 year old detainee who was held despite suffering from dementia and other health problems. Another letter, signed by members of Oxford University’s Amnesty International (OUAI), as well as by nine heads of Oxford colleges, has received no reply as yet. That letter argued, “Not only does the UK not need to be expanding its detention estate, but Campsfield House, which was opened over 20 years ago as a small, 180-bed centre, is an inappropriate site for such major expansion. Instead we call for a reversal of this proposed expansion.”

On behalf of the prime minister, The Head of Detention Operations, Immigration Enforcement at the Home Office, Karen Abel-Hady, answered the Stop Campsfield Expansion letter. Having first stated the reasons for the use of detention, the reply then addressed the plans to expand Campsfield, commenting, “The capacity of the immigration detention estate is kept under rolling review. The Home Office has submitted a planning application to expand Campsfield House which, if approved, will provide modern accommodation and facilities for detainees at a location that is owned by the Home Office and meets the strategic objectives of immigration enforcement.”

Abdel-Hady’s response went on to defend the Immigration Removal Centre, arguing, “Detention and removal are essential and effective parts of immigration control but it’s vital it’s done with humanity and dignity.”

This response has been met with disappointment from those involved in the writing the open letter. Dr Melanie Griffiths, an Oxford researcher working on deportation, immigration detention and the asylum system, tweeted about the letter.

Hmmmm. Suffice to say that I’m not entirely persuaded by the #StopCampsfieldExpansion reply. Is basically recap of detention policy.

— Melanie BE Griffiths (@MBEGriffiths) December 8, 2014

She also commented to Cherwell, “It is disappointing that David Cameron did not reply directly, given the seriousness and importance of these issues.

“The reply is short and does little more than set out detention policy and make an unsupported assertion that expansion is required in order to meet the ‘strategic objectives of immigration enforcement.’ It is disappointing not to be given more information as to what is meant by ‘strategic objectives’ and how more detention bed space will meet these, given that we have more bed space than ever before, and yet remove fewer people than previously. Instead, the UK appears to be detaining more people unnecessarily, with about half of those detained then being released back into British society. Their detention serves no purpose but is to the therefore serious detriment of the individuals, their friends and family, wider society and the public purse.

“Those of us who research, work or volunteer in this sector and who speak with people in detention, know that policy and practice are often two different things in the world of detention. The letter states that detention is always “a last resort” and used where a person has failed to leave voluntarily. However, we routinely speak with people who are detained, often for long periods of time, when they are not at the end of the immigration process or cannot be removed from the UK, often through no fault of their own. I cannot see how creating extra bed space will improve matters. The risk is that it will simply allow people to be ‘warehoused’ in administrative detention for ever longer periods of time.”

The Detention Forum, a network of organisations working together to challenge the UK’s use of detention, is also calling for a moratorium on the expansion of the centre, urging others to contact their MPs about stopping what they believe is an ‘ill-advised move by the Home Office’, that will see the detention centre’s capacity more than double from 276 to 566.

The Planning Committee for the Campsfield expansion proposals have confirmed the date for considering the expansion of the centre, to be held in Banbury, as 22 January 2015.

Somerville College sets up Skype room

News

Suzie Marshall

-

8th December 2014

0

Somerville College has set up a purpose built Skype room for the use of students and staff.

According to Mr. Chris Bamber, the IT Systems Manager at Somerville College, “the Skype room is a meeting room with the addition of a fixed LDC monitor on one wall, with a computer, HD camera, conference desktop microphone, wireless mouse and keyboard, desks, chairs and a [VOIP] phone.” The phone has hands free facilities.

As Mr. Bamber informed Cherwell, “any member of the College may book the room. [To book the room], they email the Bursary as per any other room booking”.

During the admissions period, from the December 5th to December 19th, the Skype room is being used for interviewing applicants, and so is completely booked. Whether an international applicant has a Skype interview or not depends on their subject choice and country of origin.

University regulations stipulate that any applicant applying for Medicine must be in Oxford for a face to face interview. If the candidate short-listed for an interview is a passport-holder from the European Economic Area (an EU country, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein) or from Switzerland, then they too must be present in Oxford for their interview. However, potential students from other parts of the world who cannot be in Oxford will be given a Skype interview, with no impact on the consideration their application is given.

On this subject Mr. Bamber said, “The College identified a need for a room with fixed equipment capable of hosting a Skype (or other video or audio conference) interview or meeting to provide a better experience during online interviews. It enables up to six people to see and be seen during an interview, which is important for formal interview panels. Having the dedicated space means that minimal IT support is needed to conduct a video meeting. Prior to this, IT services would provide and set up a laptop and projector for any such requests. The room has been in use since the start of this term and has been used for group meetings, job interviews by students and now in use for Admission interviews.”

Hannah Sharpe, a second year undergraduate from Somerville College, told Cherwell, “Personally, I know of the Skype room’s existence, but I’ve never used it myself, as the only Skyping I’ve ever really done is to family. I also don’t know anyone else who’s used it, but I can see that it could be useful for undergrads or grad students who are using Skype for an interview and want somewhere more formal and quiet to go than their rooms or the library. I think it’s a good idea to have a Skype room, although it could be a bit more advertised by the college to the students.”

Anyone in Oxford can use Skype on the University Network, so Somerville students are still able to use Skype outside of the Skype room.

The Skype room is located on the second floor of Maitland, in Somerville College.

An anonymous second year undergraduate at Somerville commented, “Honestly I had no idea this room existed.”

Tribunal declares Union rules changes invalid

News

Tom Calver

-

6th December 2014

0

Tribunal declares Union rules changes invalid

Outgoing Union President Mayank Banerjee’s controversial rules changes have been declared null by a tribunal, whilst Returning Officer Thomas Reynolds was cleared of interfering with Union elections.

Banerjee, whose term ends at midnight on Saturday, fought for the rules changes, which involved the legalising of campaigning, including slates, and the introduction of a Re-Open Nominations (RON) option. In a poll he conducted in 5th week, over 90 per cent of voters approved the rule changes.

However, Returning Officer Thomas Reynolds, who ran the Union elections in a 7th week which saw Roberto Weeden-Sanz elected as President for Trinity 2015 after he ran unopposed, issued an interpretation which declared the rule changes invalid during the election.

At the time, Reynolds stated that in changing the rules via poll, Banerjee’s own interpretation of the rules was “wrong”, adding that under the conditions of the President’s poll, “It is insupportable for me to run these Elections in a transparent and correct manner.”

Reynolds issued the ballot papers for the election without a RON option on them, despite Banerjee insisting that the rule changes would be in place for the election.

Banerjee had originally claimed that if his rule changes were not in place for the election, he would resign. However, he told Cherwell that despite the tribunal’s decision that his rule changes were invalid, he would not be resigning in the few hours he had left of his tenure, also refusing to comment on the decision until after the tribunal’s report had been published.

Furthermore, candidates who campaigned in the 7th week elections will not face a tribunal, Cherwell understands, as the deadline has passed for this term — despite the fact that the tribunal’s decision suggests that candidates who campaigned broke Union rules.

Although Reynolds was cleared of interfering with the election, the tribunal’s statement does not specifically state that his interpretation of the rules was correct. It is understood that they will release a new interpretation of the rules in due course.

Reynolds also refused to comment on the decision.

It remains to be seen whether incoming president Lisa Wehden, who could also not be reached, will attempt to push through the rule changes in her tenure next term.