Monday 13th April 2026
Blog Page 1262

A view from the cheap seat

0

Sandwiched between the cushions of a Turl Street Kitchen sofa, I found these notes of a bygone student producer: “Tuesday, 4th Week, Michaelmas.”

So we’re only just about to go do it! We are going to put on Hamlet. Yeah, we are going to do Hamlet at OXFORD.

We tossed around a few ideas today, me, Mark, Jez and Sophie (wait, what, they literally have the same names as the char- acters from the first series of Peep Show). We thought this has got to be different. People do Shakespeare all the time, sometimes, you actually can’t move in your JCR because your Urban Outfitter’s cardigan is stuck to one of the five pins holding up one of the countless over-stylised, bloody neon, post- ers for King Lear – which was rather good by the way! (I definitely didn’t get round to seeing it). We bashed out some ideas: we thought Hamlet as a woman, Hamlet as a post-grad, Hamlet as a tutor, Hamlet without the character of Hamlet. We thought ship in Benedict Cumberbatch and ramp up the media presence with another tire- some photobomb (not that that production needs anymore publicity), we thought do it all completely naked – we could do the sword bit at the end with their penises – feminist critics (actually any critics) would have an absolute field day. And then I really ‘hit the nail on the head’ as they say. We do Hamlet… where Hamlet is, actually, a dog.

We’re now going with, ‘Hamlet without the character of Hamlet’. We feel that, basically, everyone here has seen Hamlet already, or at least read it, and they really know the character of Hamlet better than we, at Hypnotast Productions (little nod to our rivals there), could ever perform it in the one and a half hour slot that we are bid- ding for at the BT. It will also fantastically cut down both run and rehearsal time, and hopefully we won’t need the gross skull.” 

Preview: The Mercy of Titus

0

Opera, perhaps more so than most art forms, has become divisive. For some it epitomises the very worst sort of excess enjoyed by the privileged enclaves of our society. Opera is thus entangled not only in aesthetic disputes, but socio-economic and even moral controversy. Indeed the prolonged length of the form and the setting in opulent and exclusive venues seems to make the accusation of elitism ever more compelling.

This however is most definitely not what producer Ambrose Yim and Director Hendrick Ehlers think. Their decision to stage Mozart’s late masterpiece, The Mercy of Titus has at its heart a faith in the fact that everybody can enjoy opera. One cannot help but admire their belief. Having attended a preview, it seems they may well be rewarded for their conviction. Written not long before his death, Mozart composed The Mercy Of Titus to celebrate the crowning of Leopold II. Despite his eminence the opera was not initially well received.

The Mercy of Titus tells the story of the emperor Titus and a conspiracy to overthrow him. Having seized the empire under dubious circumstances, Titus has cheesed of the ever scheming Vitelia, daughter of Titus’s predecessor. Her main bone with Titus is passing her up as a wife and thus excluding her from the power she thinks is rightly hers. The story charts her machinations and manipulations as she forces her poor lover Sextus into killing Titus. Perhaps it was all a little too racy for the audience of his time.

It’s certainly a juicy story, with all the eroticism and bitchiness of a Gossip Girl series binge.

Not really what we think of when it comes to Mozart and the Viennese court. Indeed Titus is not one of Mozart’s well-known typical crowd pleasers. But the production team is confident they can harness the sensationalism of the narrative to their advantage.

As Yim explained, the play is about “the desire for power, and the power of desire”. This fertile ground between love and politics, seduction and conspiracy comes to the fore in their interpretation. In one scene I saw, the character of Vitelia blindfolded Sextus as she teased and taunted him into burning down Rome. This is where perhaps the producers have been right.

There is undeniably something fascinating about the interplay of words and music when done well. To my untrained ear, it seems Mozart does it pretty damn well. The magic happens when the musical counterpoint elevates the lyrics into the rich and complex theatrical spectacle opera can be.

Take Vitelia. On paper, Viteilia is just your standard uber bitch seductress archetype; but in the hands of Mozart we see, tenderness, compassion and even remorse.

In moments like these, I am fully with them in their belief opera is for all. But an opera is a tricky business not least if it is to be kept fresh for a contemporary audience. Nonetheless, if the team can balance the musical virtuosity, the emotional complexity and keep us in the grip of the narrative you can be sure this will be one to watch. Seeing the passion and conviction of cast and crew alike, we also can be sure they’ll have a damn good go at it.

The Mercy Of Titus will be running from Thursday 7th to Saturday 9th of May at Exeter College Chapel page1image49968

Preview: Cut the Mustard

0

The comedy duo, Georgia Bruce and Jack Chisnall, gave me a very exciting sneak preview of their show Cut the Mustard, which will be staged this term. I was met at Trinity College porters’ lodge by the tall and fairly silent Jack, who immediately struck me as a dry, and slightly awkward David Mitchell sort-of figure.

Before I knew it I was watching him and Georgia perform an original song titled ‘Hey Kids, Don’t Do It’ – warning ‘little children’ about the dangers of drugs, strangers, crossing the road, and pretty much everything else. Jack managed to push his glasses up his face in the gaps between playing his guitar, which I think is nothing short of a great talent.

Both members met at the Oxford Revue in their first year, and decided to get together as a double act. “We both play exaggerated versions of ourselves,” says Georgia. Jack de- scribes these cameo-characters as compli- menting each other in their differences. “I’m sort of ego-y,” he says, pushing his glasses up his face again, “and she’s cute and lovely.” I have to agree that these adjectives sum up Georgia pretty well, with the addition of sparky and confident. The two compliment each other marvelously and the chemistry between the two is great.

The show will be a show of a show, for want of a better description: the audience will be observing the two characters practise for a TV recording, and watching as the proceed- ings fail somewhat. There will be audience participation to the full, and music alongthe way.

Hopefully there won’t be any expectationon their part for us to do any of the singing, but having sat through this preview I would not put it past them. Apparently however it is going to be really “chill”.

For all desperate finalists and nerve stricken prelim virgins this could be a healthy contrast from Trinity Term exam stress. I am also told there will be a “hilarious surprise” when it finally comes to the supposed recording. Be warned.

Cut the Mustard is going to be captivating. The pair will also be performing at the Edinburgh Fringe this summer, so this will serve partly as a test of their material. “But we’re taking it seriously,” Georgia assures me, wide eyed. “Yeah”, says Jack. “We’re not just doing any old shit.” 

Keble crowned rugby Cuppers champions

0

Keble clinched the Rugby Cuppers trophy last week, in an exciting triumph for this pow­erhouse of Oxford’s college rugby.

After many rounds of fixtures spanning Michaelmas and Hilary, the three Rugby Cup­pers competitions reached their dramatic conclusions on the eve of the city’s May Day cel­ebrations at the Iffley Road Stadium. Six squads had earned the right to battle it out on ‘Super Finals’ day in what proved to be a fantastic spectacle and also a testament to the quality of rugby being played across the university.

First up, at 3.30pm St. Peter’s took on Pem­broke in the Bowl Final. On the day, St. Peter’s were the much better side in what was certainly the most one-sided contest of the ‘Super Finals’. They ran riot and dominated all phases of the game from the first whistle to the last, running away to a convincing 78-10 victory.

A highlight for St. Peter’s was a spectacular try from fullback Matthew Brady that left their opposition’s spirits truly (Pem)broken. In spite of this hefty defeat, the Pembroke players de­serve credit for a gutsy performance in which they did not give up and kept playing hard until the full-time whistle to ensure that the post-match touchline beers were well-earned on both sides.

Topically, seeing as it is election season, the second game of the day gave the baying student public exactly what they wanted: a masterclass in harmonious coalitions, as St. Anne’s/St. John’s took on Corpus Christi/Somerville in the Plate final. As the winners of the 2014 Cup competition St. Anne’s/St. John’s went in to the clash as favourites on paper, with current OURFC captain George Messum anchoring the back line from outside centre and fellow Blue Tom Reeson-Price providing them with a strong presence in the back row.

Ultimately, it was Reeson-Price, switching to No. 8 from his usual second row position, who proved the difference. Thanks to his powerful hat-trick of tries, ‘the Saints’ eventually ran out 39-17 winners over Corpus Christi/Somerville.

Then came the showpiece event that every­one at Iffley had been waiting for, the Cup final between Keble and Teddy Hall. Both colleges have dominated the rugby scene in recent years sparking a fierce rivalry on and off the field, with reports of Keble fans behind enemy lines in Teddy Hall with “SHOE” banners really tak­ing the pre-match mind games up a level.

The atmosphere at Iffley was similarly elec­tric as the teams took to the pitch, Teddy Hall with two Blues giving presence to their back row and Keble’s dynamic back line featuring former Varsity Man of the Match Sam Egerton at scrum-half and 2014 OURFC captain Jacob Taylor at fullback. For the expectant crowd, it was clear an enticing clash lay ahead.

The first half was very evenly contested thanks to scores by Keble captain Jonathan Mitchell and his teammate, left winger Sam Steinert, with full-back Jacob Taylor knocking over one conversion from two. As to not lose touch, Teddy Hall hit back through fly-half Tom Dyer, who slotted a penalty through the uprights, and centre Jack Calvert, who snatched an interception and raced in to score. Consequently, there was very little in it at the break, with Keble marginally ahead 12 – 8.

As the lights came on for the second half, it was suddenly a different story, as Keble began to find their stride, building phase after phase leading them to eventually dominating large swathes of both possession and territory.

Whether this was due to inspiration from Keble alumnus Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, who tweeted in support of his former college, we’ll never know, but whatever was said at half time certainly helped change the tide of the match. Inevitably, Keble were clinical with their second half dominance and as they grad­ually pulled away from Teddy Hall, who were only able to notch a solitary penalty through Dyer in the second half. By contrast, Keble ran in a further three tries through winger David Peberdy, scrum-half Sam Egerton and centre Oakley Cox. Taylor chipped in further with the boot, converting two of the second half tries and adding two penalties for 12 total points on the day.

Keble’s victory was certainly deserved as they once again reasserted their dominance at the top of college rugby’s totem pole, claiming their 11th Cuppers title. Having fallen at the final hurdle, the Teddy Hall XV and their loyal supporters will have to wait until next year for another shot at their 33rd Cuppers crown.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11687%%[/mm-hide-text]

A combination of outstanding strength in depth, some crafty tactical play and well-taken kicks ensured victory was never out of Keble’s grasp. Teddy Hall were left exposed in the second half, run ragged by a suddenly embold­ened Keble side, hungry to take the trophy.

Congratulations to the victors, commisera­tions to those who fell short, but most impor­tantly: see you next year to do it all over again.

Not all plain sailing for Yacht Club

0

These last few weeks have been chaotic mix of highs and lows for the Oxford University Yacht Club. The Sunsail Weekend event in Portsmouth became the scene of a tense and stormy annual Yacht Varsity, with Cambridge defeating Oxford for the third year running to reclaim their crown.

Buoyed by the earlier success of the men’s dinghy team against Cambridge under Edward Scallan in the Cam Cup, yachting skipper Tim Joy led his crew in a race as much against the tempestuous weather as the experienced Cambridge team. As gusts of up to 83 knots tore down the race course, Cambridge made a stunning start and built a firm early lead, the Cambridge decision to play it safe with two reefs and no kite paying huge dividend. Joy’s team raced excellently to eat away at this lead and solidify their position at the head of the chasing pack, threatening Cambridge consistently for pole position particularly in the last third of the course. It was, however, not to be; calm seamanship and excellent race management by the Light Blues allowed them to cross the line, battered and drenched, but ultimately in first-place.

Despite brilliant performances by the entire team during the race, the foundations laid by early tactical decisions proved too much for the young Oxford crew. With the racingcommittee deciding that it was too dangerous to hold any further races, an energised Oxford crew lost the chance to make up for the loss and Cambridge claimed victory by default.

Luckily the BUCS Student Yachting Championships, also in Portsmouth, allowed a chance for redemption days later. Consisting of the best yachting teams in the  country, Oxford and Cambridge competed consistently for second place behind world-champions Southampton.

Though a full set of races was lost to awful weather, Oxford raced brilliantly on the final day to overtake Cambridge and secure second place overall. The Dark Blue crew adapted cannily to the much reduced wind of the final day of racing, managing a fantastic closing stretch and not only winning the chance to represent England at this year’s Student Yachting World Cup in France, but also inflicting revenge for the previous week’s close defeat.

If this season proves anything, it is that often yachting can be as temperamental and difficult to predict as the waters they race on.

A relatively young club with a rapidly expanding membership, OUYC should not be disheartened by the loss of their varsity. The talent shown in their successful outing at the national championships demonstrates the rapid development of both the skill and steel which defines great sailing crews. Looking forward to next year’s yacht varsity, and this term’s dinghy varsity, the entire OUYC is very much in the ascendency; Scallan looks back on a “successful season for both sides of the yacht club”, one not only of honours but also of consistent development.

How to be a Good Lad

0

Ping. An email flew into my inbox on Monday informing me that the fate of the Oriel rugby team hung in the balance unless I attended something called a Good Lad workshop. My reaction was summed up by the Cherwell editor looking over my shoulder, “So you’re a ‘Bad lad’ then are you?”

But my initial understandings of Good Lad were soon disabused as it fast became apparent the rugby team really might be discontinued. I did a bit of googling and – contrary to my expectations – this thing looked intriguing. Judging from the website it looked like Alcoholics Anonymous met post-match changing room chat. Begrudgingly I told myself I would give up an hour of precious pre-Lola-Lo’s time to attend.

And I couldn’t have been more wrong. My ignorance soon gave way to a pretty keen interest. There were 19 of us there, seated in a circle and the class was led by two cool doctoral students Will and Dylan.

Good Lad was set up a few years ago by a group of graduate and post-doctoral students who wanted to change the conversation about lad culture and gender relations. They’ve hosted workshops with the university football, hockey and rugby teams, 20 college sides, Vinnie’s club and even the Saïd Business School. Recently the campaign has become quite high profi le. The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and Sunday Times have all run features about it, whilst it has received endorsement from the likes of McKinsey’s Dominic Barton and ex-Vice Chancellor John Hood.

Good Lad works exclusively with men, but doesn’t preach. Rather it’s about exploring gender dynamics and complicated situations we might found ourselves or our mates in on nights out. At its core Good Lad is about going beyond the bare minimum and exploring what’s the best thing to do in any situation.

We got the ball rolling with a couple of ice breakers. How acceptable was it to tell a girl she’s hot? Or to buy her drinks with the intention of chatting her up? Already there was some ambiguity in the room. We tended all to agree that neither was drastically wrong. The real sticking point came when we started discussing what was a lad? A couple of definitions were bandied around; association with alcoholism, immaturity, disrespect. You get the picture.

Soon we reached the crux of the workshop: the clash between a minimum standards approach and a ‘positive masculinity framework.’ To the uninitiated this was buzzword central but the gist was straightforward. Essentially the whole point of Good Lad is that a rigid, inflexible approach to sexual encounters, based around legal obligations really doesn’t get us that far.

Will, one of the group leaders, talked us through a few examples which started to problematise matters. First of all we were in a bar with our team. One of our mates started dancing topless, miming sexual acts in front of two women: what do we do? Next up we were in a club and see a friend groping a girl’s arse after she’s asked him to stop. Finally we found ourselves back in a girl’s room at the end of a night out. This particular girl seemed uncertain about having sex. What was the best approach?

Pretty key to all of this was thinking about the other people ‘in the room’. As Will put it, “you don’t have to take a survey,” but it’s worthwhile pausing to consider who’s actually in play. What was refreshing was the conversation had moved well-beyond the standard ‘don’t rape someone’ formula. At the start we were talked through some pretty shocking statistics; one in seven women report that she feels she’s been sexually abused. But as someone in the discussion pointed out that all too rarely registers as so few of  us would ever put a woman in that position. Good Lad looked at this from a new angle. The assumption was less that all men are rapists and more that we could behave so much better.

As Josh Carpenter, one of the Good Lad cofounders, put it to me, “a lot of conversations/ workshops about gender dynamics focus on bare minimum responses like ‘don’t rape someone.’ Obviously, we all know better than that. But most guys want to be considered to be ‘good lads’ by their peers, respected by their teammates, and ultimately, satisfied with who they are as individuals.” The raucous debate which ensued in this Good Lad workshop seemed to vindicate that. There was a real acceptance that gender dynamics are complicated, that we’re not mind readers, but that the burden is on men to behave as well as they can.

So whether or not I was a ‘Bad Lad’ before I went to the class is still open to question. But I’d urge every college and university sports team to sign up for this programme. Walking out of that workshop I felt pretty sure this is one of those great, Oxford-grown initiatives we can justly be proud of.

Athletics club descend on BUCS

0

Two weeks ahead of the 141st Athletics varsity match, a huge number of Oxford athletes took to Bedford to provide a glimpse into varsity match fortunes and to give them a chance to compete against the best athletes in the country with inter­national representatives and medallists in almost every event.

Sadly there were a few notable absentees for Oxford who would have been at the fore­front of their events, who were missing due to a variety of reasons, many preserving their bodies for the varsity match.

Most notably though, Oxford were missing their talismanic Men’s Captain, Sam Trigg. On paper the class act of his Triple Jump field, the athlete was forced to miss the champion­ships as a condition of the scholarship he has obtained to jump in the US from next year, at New Mexico University.

Despite not fielding a full strength squad, the weekend can most certainly be consid­ered a success for the Dark Blues, whose presence in almost all races and field compe­titions overshadowed a comparatively tiny Cambridge team. The highlight for Oxford saw first year postgrad Miles Unterreiner, fresh from a glittering athletics career at Stanford, take an outstanding silver medal in the 10,000m as he was narrowly beaten by Jonny Hay, a GB senior international.

In addition to this, Oxford athletes made the finals right across the board, with many also picking up their Full Blue standards in the process. Our women’s throwers proved they were going to be hard to beat, with Oxford discus record-holder Christina Nick making the finals in discus and shot, joined by compatriot Anna Niedbala in the discus, both attaining the Blues standard. Also jumping the Blues standard were Ezra Leonce and Women’s captain Montana Jackson in the triple jump, both making their respective fi­nals and showcasing the strength of Oxford’s jumps team even without Trigg.

Further Blues standards were beaten on the track by George Gundle (400m), who narrowly missed out on making the final of the 400m, and Emily Moss, who did make the final of the 1500m only to have to pull out on the morning as a precaution. A number also only narrowly missed out, including fresher Louis Rawlings in the 800m, who showed a clear ability to run faster but was limited by the tactical nature of his races, though doing extraordinarily well to make the final in a high class field. In a similar position, Will Christofi and Jamie Parkinson both placed in the top 10 of their 5000m final, but both found themselves victim to a very slow and tactical race, not suited to their abilities. Further finalists on the track included three who set high personal bests in the steeple­chase, Dani Chattenton with 7:26 for 10th in the Ladies 2000m race, Alex Howard (6th, 9:16) and Aidan Smith (11th, 9:33) in the Men’s 3000m race.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%71%%[/mm-hide-text]

Commenting on the overall performance of the squad, men’s captain Trigg appreciated the difficulties of competing against sport­ing institutions such as Loughborough and Bath, but praised the strength of the squad as a whole, noting the number of Oxford athletes in finals. He finished by adding that “running, jumping and throwing against the best in the country, we showed that we’re not just a place for brains and we can be competi­tive against the best in the country”.

Somerville end Teddy bears’ picnic

0

Somerville emerged victorious in this year’s Netball Cuppers, defeating Keble in the final, with the 2014 champions, Teddy Hall, losing at the semi-final stage.

Twenty-nine teams, up on the twenty from 2014, entered to play for the coveted title of Netball Cuppers champions 2015, a tourna­ment played over a single day at the Marston Community Centre. It is truly remarkable that over 200 girls came out for the colleges, as well as plenty of supporters for each team. Netball can generate something of a bad reputation sportsmanship-wise, yet Hebe Westcott, the OUNC Cuppers and League secretary, com­mented on the smooth mixing of novices to OUNC players, with “plenty of apologies for stepping on toes, which is a really nice con­trast to BUCS”.

The matches were short and sharp, with four pools of seven or eight and mixed ability in each team. Eight teams made it through to the quarter-finals, with an upset as League winners Oriel lost to a strong, tall Teddy Hall side. Teddy Hall and New then lost in the semi-finals, setting up a Keble versus Somerville final. The Keble support should be com­mended, with the majority of the rugby team, and even the captain’s mother, turning out to shout. However, this support did not quite give the boost needed as Somerville emerged triumphant.

Somerville were strong throughout the tournament, especially in defence. Harriet Dixon, the Goal Defence for the Blues, as well as a Blues fencer, was invaluable for the college team, dominating their defence and preventing the conceding of many goals throughout the day. In the first half, Keble appeared dominant, but Somerville put their heads down and pulled away to victory.

One of the intentions of the tournament is to foster team spirit amongst colleges and sporting competitiveness, which may be missed in a term of revision and exams. This was particularly apparent in the umpiring by every college, and the respect shown for decisions. The popularity and strength of net­ball was evident in the fact of many colleges entering more than one team, and even an appearance by Osler House.

Netball is the perfect way for many people to become involved in sport, and turn out for their college, with leagues running through Michaelmas and Hilary terms. In all divisions except Division One, each team may have a male player, and mixed netball Cuppers are being held later in the term. An OUNC mem­ber commented that all teams and players came with a “brilliant attitude”, and it was a great tournament for all involved.

Homelessness: a tragic and misunderstood reality

Oxford has one of the highest per capita levels of homelessness of any city in the country. There is both intense misconception about the causes and scale of the problem, and confusion as to how to attempt reduce it.

While most people have moved away from the view that the homeless are homeless entirely due to personal fault or weakness, the issue remains a deeply misunderstood one. This is just as true with respect to the perceptions of Oxford students as of any others across the country. Consider, briefly, what would be the first reasons you would offer if someone asked why it is that the homeless you see have come to be so. Would you point to relationship breakdown? Or leaving prison with nowhere to go? Or perhaps being forced out of the family home?

In a survey of over 1000 University students, it was found that the most widely perceived cause of homelessness was believed to be addiction. The other possible causes respondents could choose ranged from relationship breakdown, to leaving prison, to mental health problems, or being forced out of the family home. All were highlighted by fewer people as a significant cause of homelessness. Indeed, only nine per cent gave family breakdown as a primary cause, while only two per cent selected leaving prison.

These beliefs are as dangerous as they are lacking a basis in reality. In a study of people who either are or have been homeless, run by Shelter, the single most common cause was found to be relationship breakdown, with this being given as a primary cause by 41 per cent of respondents. Meanwhile, 25% responded that being released from prison and having no other option was a primary cause behind their situation. The disparity between perceptions and reality here serves to underline why homelessness is so low on policy agendas. As the tendency to focus on addiction shows, too often we take the view that these are people who have brought around their own predicament and are failing to escape due to lack of effort.

I have seen this attitude repeatedly in my time here, as otherwise extremely caring people express the opinion that the homeless generally could, if they just tried a bit harder, pull themselves out of their situation.

Another problem is the lack of comprehension of the scale of the problem; in the survey 73 per cent of respondents thought that at least half of all homeless people were actually sleeping rough. In actual fact, for every rough sleeper you see, there will be 100 more in hostels. In 2013, over 112,000 declared themselves homeless. On top of this, the ‘hidden homeless’, consisting of a far larger group who have found temporary accommodation in insecure housing, push the demographic into the many hundreds of thousands.

The problem is clearly one that needs solving. This in itself is a complex issue, as seen in the Council’s ‘Your Kindness Could Kill’ campaign. Intended to convey how it is usually more effective to give money to charities that could better pool superior resources, some inferred from this slogan the implication that money given directly to the homeless will necessarily be used to buy alcohol and drugs.

However, despite these difficulties, there are a number of things which can be done. If you see someone sleeping rough, call ‘No Second Night Out’ on 0300 500 0914. They are a group committed to trying to ensure than no one sleeps rough more than once more after they have been altered. Alternatively, if you want to give money in some way but are worried about how it will be used, put money in the homeless medical fund collection boxes in your college receptions.

Homelessness is a far larger problem than is usually thought; it needs to be acted against, and unless it is accepted that it is not just the responsibility of the homeless person but also the rest of society to help get them out of their situation, many will end up stuck in a cycle which can so easily be avoided

Debate: Is Cuntry Living bad for feminism?

0

Yes

Louisa Manning

I am a feminist. Last year, I joined the Cuntry Living Facebook group, which describes itself as “an Oxford-based feminist zine”. However, having been on the group for some time, I have come to think Cuntry Living is bad for feminism.

I want to point out that I do not think it fails in every respect. For many people from marginalised groups, it does provide a space in which they can express their feelings about the oppression which they have suffered and discuss what it is that can be done to bring about change.

However, and particularly recently, those within the Cuntry Living journalistic movement have increasingly marginalised and attacked those not adhering to their particular view on feminism. As a direct result of this, the group has become a militant, aggressive space which actively harms women’s voices and effectively shuts down feminist discussion.

In a modern world where feminism embraces and emphasises plurality, the trigger- happy attitude the admins hold towards banning members is counter-productive.This was clearly highlighted when one member was banned simply for suggesting that a political cartoon failing to depict the three female party leaders could have done so for reasons other than sexism. Similarly, women who identify as feminists but disagree with issues such as sex-work have been instantly silenced by admins and received warnings for expressing their views.

Underlying this is an incredible degree of judgement on behalf of the admins about who is a ‘real’ feminist. If further evidence of this is needed, some have recently admitted to Facebook-stalking members’ profiles to assert whether or not they are “legit feminists”.

This unnecessarily aggressive approach to the moderation and control of the views expressed on the group means many members fear posting. This goes against the fundamental principles of what such a group should be about, as, rather than silencing and suppressing important conversations, it ought to be promoting feminist debate and allowing all those with a heartfelt opinion to be heard out.

Another problem with Cuntry Living in its present form is whether it can truly claim (as it does) to be an intersectional space. The issue is that with the number of groups represented in its 8,500 member base, there will naturally be domination of some over others.

Mixed-race erasure, for example, is common: being half Latino, whenever I’ve become involved with threads discussing race, I’ve been accused of ‘passing privilege’ and have been instructed to identify as white when talking to people of colour. Needless to say this makes commenting uncomfortable and daunting.

Thus, Cuntry Living essentially creates an attitude of mixed-race erasure and in doing so it completely fails in its aim to be an intersectional space, and in fact furthers the marginalisation of some of the groups it claims to represent.

On top of this, the patronising, self-righteous tone admins take when issuing warnings promotes a classism and elitism: Cuntry Living’s admins fail to recognise that with the group’s expansion to involve new groups, many of the members now involved have not benefitted from their educational privileges. In order to succeed as an intersectional feminist space, the group needs to be as accessible as possible – something which it is currently not.

Emma Watson’s HeForShe speech last September emphasised the need for feminism not only to involve and mobilise women, but also any possible allies of the movement. Watson did a good job of presenting feminism as it should be; not as a man-hating philosophy, but as one where everyone should take equal involvement in striving for gender equality.

Cuntry Living, on the other hand, superficially welcomes men but deeper down takes a strong ally-exclusionary attitude. Views are dismissed purely on the basis of someone appearing white, heterosexual and male.

A recent case of this includes a recent post where a non-binary person posted a criticism of Cuntry Living and was instantly shouted down for being ‘male’ and ‘invading a feminist space’. Doing this – judging members on the basis of their profile picture and silencing potential allies’ opinions – directly harms feminism’s progress as it further conforms to damaging stereotypes and risks allowing this version of feminism to become popularised.

Considering possible routes forward, it seems that some of Cuntry Living’s problems would be reduced through a resolution of its identity crisis: it claims to be a safe space but equally says “healthy debate is welcomed”. It can’t be both – it can’t provide both a space where people can rant unquestioned and at the same time be one where open debate is welcomed. Its expansion makes this problem even more pronounced.

Though Cuntry Living’s original aims may have been positive, it’s no longer either a safe space nor an educational one – it’s become a group dominated by a single mentality which alienates anyone not adhering to a particular strand of feminism.

No

Niamh McIntyre

Cuntry Living has a special place in my heart. I came to Oxford as a nervous, unconfident 18-year-old with a hell of a lot of internalised misogyny, a tentative feminist who probably wouldn’t have loudly identified as such in front of the boys at sixth-form college. Joining Cuntry Living was a hugely important moment in my feminist awakening; it was through Cuntry Living, as much as the people I met in real life at university, that I encountered loud, proud, outspoken, unapologetic feminists. I would obsessively follow threads populated by people much more knowledgeable than I was, until I became confident and well-read enough to participate in this new community I so admired.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%11682%%[/mm-hide-text]

To question whether Cuntry Living is a force for good, however, I should maybe take off these rose-tinted spectacles. I’m now approaching the end of my second year, and the Cuntry Living I joined is very distinct from the group today. Because, somewhere along the line, without anyone understanding why or how, Cuntry Living has become a hugely important Oxford institution. Not only that, but it’s expanded far beyond the Oxford student community, or even the student community. It’s a space that no one can quite control or define. It’s not a completely safe space, despite the best efforts of its admins, but it’s not an educational space, open to everyone, either. It’s not only the objectives and ethos of the group which are constantly shifting and expanding: at the time of writing, Cuntry Living has 8,495 members, with new members joining from all corners of the internet every day. Every time a new banning scandal comes along, we re-ignite the questions around the limits of the space.

For me, there is at least one essential characteristic of Cuntry Living: it’s a space to rant about the patriarchy, a space for solidarity, rage, and organising. This is a core value worth fighting for – but also one that is increasingly difficult to defend in a group so huge. Whether it achievesit or not, Cuntry Living aims to be a space where oppressed people who are silenced and shouted down in real life or in other online spaces, should be able to speak without fear.

Enforcing this principle in a group with thousands of members, many of whom are unfamiliar with the etiquette of safe spaces or online activism, is a thankless task. Currently, many members would consider the safe spaces policy a waste of time, an example of the ‘censorious’ tendency of social justice; but for others, they are both radical and vital and I completely believe that Cuntry Living should strive to be as safe as possible.

I won’t defend every decision an admin has ever made to ban someone on Cuntry Living. I haven’t followed every case; I’m sure that mistakes have been made, and people unfairly removed. But for me, creating a community for marginalised voices is more important than the odd person wrongly slipping through the net.

This brings us to the tedious and ever-present questions of “debate” and “free speech”. Of course, healthy and respectful debate on Cuntry Living is the lifeblood of the group. Despite what some might think, there isn’t some monolithic, authoritarian feminist doctrine that everyone must follow. There isn’t one feminism, there are multiple feminisms, and Cuntry Living reflects this.

But at the same time, there are some things which aren’t up for debate. (Yes, I’ve heard that Voltaire quote before.) For example, there’s a particularly nasty strain of radical feminism which says that trans women are not really women: this is a view which would never be admitted on a Cuntry Living thread, and rightly so, because Cuntry Living holds itself to far higher standards of inclusivity than other places.

Those expecting Cuntry Living to be a 101 go-to educational forum 24/7 are likely to be disappointed. It’s okay to ask questions, of course, but only if those questions are asked in a respectful way. Many members of the group are tired of justifying why they deserve to be treated with basic human rights, and they don’t owe anything to privileged people who are too lazy to do some basic research on Google. Those who come to Cuntry Living with the aim of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ or proposing ‘thought experiments’ have fundamentally misunderstood the function of the group: sorry, white boy, but this space is about more than your intellectual gymnastics. Ultimately, this group is not and should not be run for those with privilege. And this is something that (shock!) privileged people have a hard time accepting.

Cuntry Living isn’t perfect. And this is part of the problem: many treat it as though it should be perfect, as though it should be a High Church of Feminism, all things for all people. And yet, despite the sensationalised banning scandals, despite the admins’ Reign of Terror, still the group continues to serve its purpose in the Oxford community and beyond. It’s not the group I joined, certainly, and there are a lot more dickheads and derailers on threads but, ultimately, I can still find solace and solidarity in an (imperfect) space in which we can challenge patriarchy and share our experiences of oppression.