Wednesday 8th April 2026
Blog Page 1330

Breastfeeding, facesitting & patriarchal control

0

Recently, Lou Burns was instructed to cover up while breastfeeding her baby in the Claridges restaurant in London. Soon after, Nigel Farage suggested that women should “do it in a corner”, stating, “It isn’t too difficult to breastfeed a baby in a way that is not openly ostentatious.” It almost sounds like Farage has some experience in this area. Maybe he should write a new book, ‘How to be a mother – the British way’. You never know, it could be a bestseller.

But I doubt it. Thankfully, women are not going to be ‘put in the corner’ by a white, privately-educated, former-banker cis-male who has about as much identification with women (or indeed any other underprivileged group) as a teaspoon. In response to the incident, a group of forty mums organised a ‘nurse in’ protest outside Claridges. One protestor, Clare Mariscal, carried a banner saying: “That’s what breasts are for, stupid.” As she pointed out, “No-one has any problem with breasts when they’re displayed in a dress. Boobs are everywhere – people only object when they are used for their normal and natural purpose.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10722%%[/mm-hide-text]

The responses of Claridges and Farage are symbols of how patriarchal considerations of ‘appropriateness’ are used to control women’s freedom of action.

Why should you be offended or embarrassed by breastfeeding in public? Ironically, covering up with a napkin almost draws more attention to the fact that you are breastfeeding. It seems to me that the only answer is that breasts are portrayed in our culture almost exclusively as objects of sexual desire for the gaze of men. This is a blatant manifestation of patriarchy: female sexuality is deemed appropriate and acceptable only when viewed through a patriarchal lens – when within male control. Breasts are deemed ‘appropriate’ when women are being perceived as sex objects, but ‘inappropriate’ when women are acting as subjects – whether through breastfeeding, or expressing their own sexuality.

In other words, female sexuality is deemed ‘inappropriate’ whenever it smacks of female autonomy. Through an amendment to the 2003 Communications Act, the UK government recently banned a list of sexual acts in porn. It is interesting that this list of “content that is not acceptable” banned female ejaculation alongside strangulation and aggressive whipping. It is both baffling and enraging that female sexuality is demonised in this way.

I personally feel that porn is symptomatic of our dysfunctional and voyeuristic attitude to sex – in an ideal society, there would not be a need for it. But if it is going to be circulated, it should be fully representative of the sexual experiences of both women and men.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10723%%[/mm-hide-text]

The legislation also banned facesitting in porn, to the outrage of many. Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme, asks: “I mean, why ban facesitting? … [because] its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable.”

Women’s sexuality has become a battleground.

Women’s freedom of action is constantly checked by considerations of patriarchal appropriateness; they must cover up when breastfeeding in public, and they must not ejaculate in pornography. In Chimamanda Adichi’s powerful words: “We say to girls ‘You can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you will threaten the man.’… We teach girls that they cannot be sexual beings in the way that boys are.” It seems we are also saying to women, “You can express your sexuality, but not too much. You can breastfeed in public, so long as you cover up. You can enjoy sex in porn, but not so much that you ejaculate.”

These incidents also demonstrate how our definition of what is ‘appropriate’ for women is filtered through other structural inequalities of class, race and heteronormativity. The idea that breasts are for lads’ mags, not five-star restaurants, relates not only to the division of men and women, but to the division of class. Pippa Middleton recently criticized Kim Kardashian for exposing her “booty” in the media, conveniently ignoring the fact that her fame was significantly furthered by the nation’s objectification of her own, ‘classy’, white-lace-and-silk-covered derrière.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10724%%[/mm-hide-text]

Regarding  the structural inequality of race, famous women of colour are more prone to being regarded as ‘inappropriate’ in their expression of their sexuality. Beyoncé has attracted significantly more criticism for embracing her sexuality than Miley Cyrus, when both claim to be feminists. As Lauren Rankin argues: “When white women get to decide who is ‘feminist enough’, particularly around women of color, they are perpetuating racism. They are policing the boundaries of who is acceptable and who isn’t. This is nothing more than a tool of racist patriarchy wrapped in feminist rhetoric.” 

The structural oppression of heteronormativity also informs what we consider to be ‘inappropriate’; it creates a hierarchy in which heterosexual acts are privileged and elevated, while non-heterosexual acts are stigmatized and labelled ‘inappropriate’.

The fact that ‘appropriateness’ is filtered through these privileged assumptions shows that the struggle against the patriarchy has to be an intersectional movement – in other words, it has to address other related forms of oppression, such as class, race and heteronormativity.

The porn legislation effectively demonises the sexual activity of those without privilege – whether male, heterosexual or ‘vanilla’ privilege. Charlotte Rose says that it “certainly makes me wonder if this is all about white knight syndrome: blokes who don’t understand anything other than straight, lights out missionary position sex, believing they’re somehow doing the rest of us a favour by banning whatever grosses them out”.

We should stop this obsession with ‘appropriateness’ and focus on the bigger picture. All the time we spend bickering about whether Beyoncé is really a ‘better’ feminist than Emma Watson or Taylor Swift, or whether Pippa Middleton is a more respectable sex symbol than Kim Kardashian, we are getting more bogged down in patriarchal prejudices born of structural inequalities. Instead of applying the criteria of ‘appropriateness’ for admission into the field of ‘serious feminism’, we should be thinking about what an anti-patriarchal society would really look like. Such a society would surely be founded upon the principles of equality, freedom, and solidarity with those without ‘privilege’, rather than the demonization of these groups.

The fact that women are prevented from breastfeeding in public and ejaculating in pornography shows how the battle against the patriarchy is not over. The struggle against oppression calls for an intersectional movement against systems that elevate the privileged and label others as ‘deviant’ or ‘inappropriate’. If that movement is ‘inappropriate’ or ‘inconvenient’ for the privileged, then so much the better.

Review: Love Is Enough – William Morris and Andy Warhol

0

Turner Prize winner Jeremy Deller’s exhibition contrasting William Morris with Andy Warhol, two of the most recognisable artists of the past two centuries, opened at Modern Art Oxford last week to a keen audience. The exhibition offers a lot more than the expected, presenting the viewer with an alternative to the popular idea of these artists. William Morris has long been regarded either as a staple of fashionable vintage-style curtains, wallpaper, and umbrellas or alternatively seen as a grumpy, taciturn fellow whose socialist leanings were perhaps undermined by his own wealth. Here, he is revealed as a hard working, multi-talented, and at times charming artist and designer, whose socialism was reflected in his attitudes towards his own work.  Scribblings of medieval knights and doodles on a page of notes from a political lecture present a touchingly human image of Morris. Meanwhile, Deller has noted that he wants the exhibition to help people see Warhol as more than just a profit-seeking artist, but as an artist of integrity. The comparison with Morris certainly helps with this.

The viewer discovers parallels between the two artists’ practices, photographs of Warhol’s Factory are interestingly presented alongside images of Merton Abbey, where Morris and Co, the company that Morris founded, produced their fabrics, wallpapers, and designs. The original blocks used to print Morris’ wallpaper are displayed and it is easy to see the link between them and the acetate sheet used to create the Marilyn prints that Warhol is pictured holding up for our inspection in the Factory. The craftsmanship of the artists’ work is highlighted, despite their differing respective aims.

A work that particularly stood out was Morris’ tapestry, The Attainment: The Vision of the Holy Grail to Sir Galahad, Sir Bors, and Sir Percival, which greets you as you climb the stairs up into the gallery space.  Morris’ vast tapestry, over twenty feet long and eight feet high, woven from mohair, camel hair, wool, and silk, dominates one wall of the exhibition space, and depicts the climax of the story of the Holy Grail as told in Morte d’Arthur.  With the typical Pre-Raphaelite mixture of naturalism and symbolism, the piece revives a medieval art form, which in its day was far more popular than painting.  The opening text of the exhibition notes the interest that both Morris and Warhol found in mythology, that of Arthurian romance and medieval legend for Morris, and that of Hollywood for Warhol. This is reflected in the numerous photographs from Warhol’s autograph collection, including a signed photo from Shirley Temple, addressed to ‘Andrew Warhol’, and a number of his famous celebrity silkscreen prints, one of Joan Collins, another of Dame Elizabeth Taylor.  Warhol’s Marilyn Tapestry, 1968, offers another form of that famous image, staring across the gallery towards Morris’. Warhol’s however is created more like a carpet, hinting at the banal domesticity ‘celebrities’ are consigned to, an image embodying the idea of the ‘household name.’ Warhol’s morbid interest in the almost mythologized Kennedy clan, Jackie Kennedy in particular, is also explored, the mythological aspect reflected in Jackie Kennedy’s coinage of the name ‘Camelot’ to describe her husband’s presidency. 

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%10720%%[/mm-hide-text]

However it is not the exploration of celebrity in Warhol’s work that proves to be the most interesting, but that of his more overtly political works, such as Map of Eastern USSR Missile Bases, as it offers a more unexpected view of the artist.  The simple monochrome piece gave a sense of the fear surrounding the facts surrounding the USSR during the height of the Cold War.  The work, created a handful of years before the fall of the USSR, still has the power to unnerve, even after the fall of its subject; one can imagine the abandoned concrete buildings each cartoon like missile depiction refers to.  The silkscreen prints of Warhol’s electric chair images which are displayed, further emphasise the argument of Warhol as a politically engaged artist, one who was by no means entirely commercial in outlook but who was willing to unnerve and unsettle with his artwork in a more explicit manner than Morris.

While the works of these two artists may at first seem an odd juxtaposition, Deller’s appreciation of the two has brought about an interesting contrast. The exhibition draws out different strains of the artists, and brings an awareness of artistic process. Although some comparisons seem a little flippant, such as the display of a set of Warhol’s Mao prints above a case of pamphlets and leaflets which serve as testament to Morris’ socialist activity, it is an overall fruitful and pleasing comparison, which leads the viewer to a greater appreciation of both artists. The exhibition is open until March 8, and is free to enter. 

Review: J. Cole – 2014 Forest Hills Drive

0
★★★★☆
Four Stars
 

The title of J. Cole’s third album, 2014 Forest Hills Drive, makes reference to the North Carolina MC’s childhood home. As a setting, it provides a fitting backdrop for a record which is intensely personal. Well-established in hip-hop’s mainstream consciousness, Cole’s decision to look inwards rather than outwards for his subject matter is a bold gamble, into which he throws himself with confidence and vigour.

Cole namedrops his contemporary Kendrick Lamar on the album’s second track, “January 28th”, and it’s in the vein of Lamar’s 2012 work good kid, m.A.A.d city that Cole places his story: a three-act movement, from dark beginnings through to a final realisation. Despite his ambition, Cole isn’t quite as insightful a storyteller as Kendrick, but this framework lets him channel his best quality as an MC, namely his powerful, introspective honesty; his striking tales of a fatherless childhood in “03’ Adolescence” (“Four years or so from now I’ll probably cry / When I realise what I missed, but as of now my eyes are dry”) embrace sensitivity, and with it offer nuances of humanity to Cole’s early tracks. Likewise, “Wet Dreamz” finds him losing his virginity; his reminiscences on “watching pornos trying to see just how to stroke right” inject his childhood tales with much-needed self-deprecating humour.

Cole’s lyricism in the album’s first act matches his honesty and dedication; he eschews the immature wordplay of his previous records for a more tightly crafted focus on storytelling and mood. It’s a decision reflected in his delivery – often a foible for Cole on records past – which shifts from youthful innocence to a grittier timbre in “A Tale of 2 Citiez”. Similarly, Cole’s assured self-production moves smoothly through the record’s changing tones; drawing on myriad samples, Cole uses Japanese easy-listening to soundtrack the dreamy “January 28th”, but flips a shuddering drumbeat from Pusha T’s “Blocka” for “A Tale of 2 Citiez” just as adeptly. “Fire Squad”, the album’s highlight, channels ‘90s hip-hop with an insistent piano loop and boom-bap percussion backing both braggadocio and incisive commentary on cultural appropriation, imagining Cole watching “Iggy win a Grammy as I try to crack a smile”.

Yet as the album progresses, it’s hard to shake the feeling that Cole is stretched too thin. On “No Role Modelz”, he clumsily tries to turn suspicion of a girl into a discourse on female role models, and his venture into singing, albeit endearing, is a bridge too far for Cole’s independent designs. Although a bold choice, the refusal of guests falls somewhat into self-indulgence, demanding that Cole be at once the relatable everyman and the “god” that his ambition impels him to be.

However, even as 2014 Forest Hills Drive falls short of the classic status Cole desires, it remains a powerfully personal album, and Cole’s most focused effort so far. It may not be worthy of the lengthy final credits sequence “Note to Self”, which apes Cole’s mentor Jay-Z’s “My First Song”, but its integrity and bravery create an imperfect but highly enjoyable experience.

Oxonians outside Oxford

0

It’s not the prettiest conclusion, I’ll warn you now. It’s all because of the Varsity Ski trip which I soon grew to understand needs a disclaimer-tagline. Varsity: the breeding ground for the pretentious and concentrated, the ironic-but-am-I-actually-being-ironic. You think you’ve heard it all,and then you go on Varsity.

I will start by clarifying. I enjoyed the trip. A lot. I plan on returning next year. But there are perils. One meets many “characters” at Oxford. Characters you learn to humour, whose hair you can fondly ruffle and question whether they reeeeeeeeaally should have said what they indeed just said. When I meet a St Benet’s student who is wearing a stiffly ironed shirt under their ski-suit, (“It’s excellent for keeping warm you know”), I laugh, and applaud them for not giving a fuck. But by the end of the week, my sweet meek sensitive self is lost to a grumpy, sassy hair-flicker.

What is most evident is that there are a few sectors of people who choose to go on Varsity. I had foolishly assumed that we would all think similarly – ski, drink, sleep, repeat. What could be better? But for some, the hubbub ‘Var-cité’ is where it’s at. All day. Every day. Essentially being purely a bar taken over for the week, with live ‘music’, I was definitely understood the appeal of après-ski. Sure. But pre-ski, during-ski, no-ski? On a skiing holiday?

Skiing. Holiday. A holiday to ski. I grit my teeth to think how many people spent less than half the week skiing. To think how many people actually skiied more than a single run.

Characters from the trip still haunt me. A fresher in the queue for the fittingly named ‘Melting Pot’ (a sweaty, underground club). His loud eruptions of ‘thought’ refused to let me go. At one point he even dared try and involve me in the ‘conversation’. Ha. Good one. Everything was ‘totally sweet’, the not quite concealed staccatoed enunciation revealing the comfortable middle-class background behind uncomfortable 90s chat ‘n’ hat.

“You have to like learn to dig the vibe, I feel.”

Don’t you just. 

Varsity is about vibing. Shredding metaphorical pow. Making some friends (who you avoid making eye contact with months later in Bridge).Yes. You certainly have to get used to the vibe. The chat goes on and on. And on. A girl makes a loud passive-aggressive joke to her boyfriend about a pink dildo. Elsewhere a fight nearly starts as the queue sways swiftly forward and back, like a tree caught in a fierce gale. That is, if gales keenly shoved, and blew toxic fumes of beer-fuelled-self-assertion, sexual frustration, and a lopsided, bemused me. Are these really some of the most intelligent students in the country? Are people around me going to be running the country? Writing venerable works of Post Post Modernism?

It takes until a week later, as I sit on the tube, watching people race on and off through slicing doors, that I realise. Without the framework of ‘important dates’ to pretend to rush to and between and from, essays to indulgently ignore, Tesco bags to lug home, pre-drinks to squeeze into evenings,… – we lose our control. We are left to the freedom of time. And so the champagne bottles pop and pour over floors, (“To debauchery!” each cork quietly shrieks) and I am left to snap my goggles on. It’s the only way I’m going to be seeing things rose-tinted.

Oxford first in the UK for university research

0

Oxford University has been rated number one in the UK for the quality and volume of its research.

The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), a large-scale assessment reviewing the quality and impact of research in different subjects at universities across the UK, found that Oxford has the largest volume of world-leading research in the country.

52,000 academics at 154 institutions across the UK were included in the two year long public assessment of university research output.

2,409 members of Oxford University’s academic staff were submitted for assessment in the REF, researching in 31 academically diverse areas. The analysis, produced by Research Fortnight, graded the research using a four star system, where four stars was the best (world-leading), and one star represented research that was recognised nationally. 48.1 per cent of the University’s research was categorised as four stars, while a further 39 per cent was rated 3 stars.

The University also ranked first in 12 individual academic subjects for volume of world-leading research. These covered all the University’s main academic divisions: the medical sciences, humanities, the social sciences and maths, physics, and the life sciences.

Furthermore, the University performed strongly in the new impact category of the REF. Examples of the impact of Oxford University research ranged from a new malaria treatment which has helped save more than a million lives globally to a major database of ancient pottery and gems, used by museums and the antiquities trade around the world.

Professor Andrew Hamilton, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, said, “I welcome our superb REF results, which clearly reflect our outstanding world-leading research. It is pleasing to be ranked in first place, but even more pleasing to see recognition of the fantastic contribution Oxford researchers make to knowledge across a huge range of subjects and of the real impact they have on health, prosperity, policy formation and culture around the world.”

“It is vital — if the full economic, social and cultural benefits of this research excellence at Oxford, and elsewhere in the higher education sector are to be realised — that strong and sustained public investment in leading university research is maintained and indeed increased.”

On Twitter, the University of Oxford declared itself to be “very proud”.

The results of the REF are to be used by the four UK higher education funding bodies to allocate £2billion of block-grant research funding to UK universities from 2015–2016. As Oxford ranked first, it is set to accept the largest share of the funding.

The periodic assessment of the quality and impact of university research in the UK ensures funds are distributed selectively on the basis of quality and volume of research carried out at each university. This was previously known as the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and was last conducted in 2008, where Oxford also placed first.

However, despite Oxford remaining in the top position, London universities are dividing Oxbridge. University College London, which in 2008 ranked 3rd, is now placed 2nd, between Oxford and Cambridge, thus breaking up the historic dominance of these universities.

The London School of Economics was found to have the highest proportion of world-leading research, with 49.9 per cent of its research given four stars (compared to Oxford’s marginally inferior 48.1 per cent, and Cambridge’s 46.8 per cent). Oxford was ranked higher in the REF due to a greater of research, and for a higher score in the impact category.

Students have reacted positively to Oxford receiving the highest funding for research of any UK university. Second year Chemistry undergraduate, Harry Bush, commented: “as an undergraduate it’s evident I had no contribution towards this, but it really excites me for the prospects of being part of some world class and novel research in my 4th year and perhaps beyond”.

Meanwhile, James Blythe, OUSU VP for Access & Academic Affairs, and Louis Trup, OUSU President, were also pleased with Oxford’s performance.

HEFCE release the exact funding respective universities receive in Spring, so, as the University commented to Cherwell, “While we are clearly in a strong position, we will not know exactly how HEFCE works out the formula until it is announced in March.”

Review: Morrissey – O2 London

0

They came, presumably, from all corners of the country, maybe from beyond. They had their Smiths shirts, their quiffs, the odd gladiolus, those glasses; mostly they were men, some were old, but the majority (it seemed) were young. As I got off the tube at Greenwich, a great chant filled the station, a choir of wannabe misfits and old timers singing “And if a double-decker bus crashes into us… and so on. In the air: a sense of remarkable jubilation, festive almost… almost, indeed, religious. So in they came, electric and chanting, flooding the O2 arena, here to gawp at and worship one Stephen Patrick Morrissey.

Witty, spikey, a man of Olympian irony and outrageous opinions; the contrarian vegetarian, homoerotic, surly and shy in equal measure, self-deprecating, cheeky and pathologically narcissistic all at once; disgusted with life and sex and yet bewitched by desire for carnal contact: Morrissey is a unique individual, the eccentric uncle of modern British music.

2014 really hasn’t been a good year for Morrissey. Firstly, although attaining pretty saleable reviews, his new album World Peace Is None Of Your Business was withdrawn from iTunes and Spotify after a bumptious spat between Morrissey and his label, Harvest (it still hasn’t been re-released). His American tour was cut short due to illness and yet more quarrels (this time with support acts). To top off the misery, Morrissey revealed in October that he had been treated for ‘cancerous tissues’. Despite this, his European tour this November has been quietly successful, and his performance at the O2 on the 29th proved to be no different.

The show began with the most Morrisseyesque collection of videos imaginable: Jimmy Clithero sketches, scenes from A Taste of Honey, clips of The Ramones and New York Dolls – and, predictably, pictures of the late Lady Thatcher set to the tune of ‘Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead’. After this, Morrissey makes his grand entrance – he’s wearing a white tracksuit – and teases the crowd with two classics: ‘The Queen is Dead’ and ‘Suedehead’. With the crowd primed, Morrissey begins what he came here to do – what he was put on earth to do: promote his latest album and make meat-eaters feel very guilty indeed. He succeeds on both accounts.

He sings almost all of his new material, some of which is very good: I’m thinking particularly of the thundering ‘I’m Not A Man’, ‘Kiss Me A Lot’ (a typical Morrissey ballad of stunted desire) and ‘Neil Cassidy Drops Dead’. Some aren’t so good. The title song ‘World Peace Is None Of Your Business’ is a howler of particular note, a jangly little number full of banal politics and Brandisms (‘each time you vote you support the process’).

As a performer, Morrissey is as good as he’s ever been. His voice is stronger than ever before. His movements, gestures and swoops are glorious to behold: each head-flick, each tragic turn and genuflection is choreographed to transform Morrissey into the doomed, romantic figure he has always longed to be. The crowd buys it; many swoon and weep as he twists and writhes. There is an atmosphere of exquisite fatalism, the electrifying miserablism that has been Morrissey’s stock-in-trade for over thirty years. Morrissey has always fetishized death and illness (existential and physical), but here he excels himself: he ends with an astonishing rendition of ‘Asleep’, urging the crowd: ‘Remember me, but forget my fate’, an echo of Dido from Purcell – a reference to the fatal course of his illness? Perhaps.

A woman next to me quite seriously breaks down in tears for the remainder of the show. By the end of the whole thing, I too am a little weepy, leaving all at once exhilarated and dejected, buzzing and sorrowful. Well, what else would you expect from Morrissey? 

State school colleges are a belittling suggestion

0

Lorna Finlayson recently argued in The Guardian for the need for state school colleges in Oxbridge. As a state school student myself, I felt patronised and belittled by her suggestion.

She talks of her concern for the disproportionately low number of students from “non-traditional” backgrounds, or, in other words, less advantaged backgrounds. I could not agree more. She also talks about busting stereotypes, but this is exactly what the introduction of state school only colleges would not do.

When it comes to the issue of access, statistics about background are often bandied about, such as the fact that 5% of students from private school went on to study at Oxbridge in 2011, as opposed to 1% from state school. However, when people cite these statistics, they often do not contextualise them with the fact that a much lower proportion of state-educated students apply. The problem is not that “private school students obtain higher grades,” but rather that state school students are not receiving enough support from their own schools to undergo the application process. I agree with Finlayson that action is necessary to shake the oppressive structures still present within the university, but I feel that creating a form of social segregation within the university would not achieve this. 

The argument that state school colleges are comparable to women-only colleges becomes redundant when we consider that the latter were only introduced because women had previously been banned altogether from enrolling at university. As sexual equality in education has gradually improved, sex-segregated colleges have mostly become co-educational. As a member of a former women-only college, I revel in the pride of being part of a progressive body, reflected by the college’s decision to embrace gender equality and to fight against sexual discrimination.

A move to women-only colleges would be a move back into the past. In the same way, the creation of state school colleges would be a step backwards for the University, serving only to reinforce the hierarchy that already exists. All too often I have been the brunt of comments such as, “Oh, you’re from state school? It must have been easier for you to get in then, they favour state-schoolers,” or belittled by notions of us being “less intelligent” than our private-school counterparts. Creating a college where only state-schoolers can apply would simply seem to prove that right.

One of the most exciting parts of coming to university, for me, has been meeting people I never normally would have: those from worse-off backgrounds than my own as well as, yes, those famous Etonians discussed by Finlayson. And, indeed, some of them do live up to the stereotype. But to create a divide between state and private school pupils would simply deny us the opportunity to prove them wrong, and deny both of us the opportunity to make friends with those we otherwise might have dismissed as clones of our own stereotypes.

Finlayson talks of a continued division and inequality between state and private school students, and condemns the society to which it belongs. It is not this that I disagree with. In fact, I do feel keenly at times this state/private division in Oxford, although due less to antagonism, I believe, than to lack of shared experience. However, further entrenching this division by the introduction of separate colleges would only support the stereotypes of there being any distinction at all. So please stop patronising state school students. We are just as capable as our private school counterparts, and we do not need to be told otherwise.

Guardian editor to become LMH Principal

0

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has been announced as the new Principal of Lady Margaret Hall after a meeting of the Governing Body on December 17th. Rusbridger, who last week announced his decision to stand down from his position at the Guardian after 20 years, is expected to take up the post in October 2015.

In response to his election, Rusbridger, who is replacing the outgoing Principal Frances Lannnon, commented, “I am honoured that the Fellows of Lady Margaret Hall have elected me to be their next Principal.

“LMH is a pioneering college, beginning with its roots as the first to admit women to study at Oxford.  Its history is an inspiring one of intellectual distinction and of opening up equal educational and career possibilities.

“I am looking forward very much to joining the College next autumn and to building on the tremendous achievements of Frances Lannon, who has led LMH with such distinction over the past 13 years.”

The College is equally positive about the new relationship, with a spokesperson declaring that LMH was “delighted” to unveil Rusbridger as the incoming Principal. The University was also enthusiastic about the appointment on Twitter.

Rusbridger will take on his role at LMH in addition to his new responsibilities as Chair of the Scott Trust, the body that owns the Guardian and seeks to ensure its editorial freedom. Rusbridger addressed concerns about sharing his workload between the two, saying, “[I] look forward to combining Scott Trust & LMH.”

Lady Margaret Hall student Alice King supported the announcement, commenting, “It’s a really exciting time for the college. LMH has been home to a number of prominent journalists, including war journalist Tim Hetherigton, who was killed while investigating filming in Libya in 2011. I hope Mr Rusbridger feels well at home in our college. Dr Francis Lannon has presided over periods of serious development, so it’s interesting to see what happens next.”

However Lewis Hedges disagreed, saying, “I can’t help but feel that the last thing that LMH needs is another leftie. Besides, LMH is all the way over in OX2, that’s practically the moon, you couldn’t appoint anyone who would put them on the map.”

Review: Charli XCX – Sucker

0
★★★☆☆
Three Stars
 
It’s been a busy year-and-a-half for Charli XCX. After penning global smash ‘I Love It’ for Icona Pop, she released her debut album, True Romance to critical raves, recorded an unreleased punk album, and then followed it up with lending her commanding presence to Iggy Azalea’s summer smash ‘Fancy’. Then, in between writing for Britney Spears, Gwen Stefani and Rihanna, she gained her first solo UK and US top 10 hit with ‘Boom Clap’, and still found time to record another solo effort Sucker, which having been already released in America, comes to the UK next January. Yet despite these huge successes Charli XCX still seemed as if she was on the perpetual come-up, never quite landing that elusive home-run. All that should change with this massive, crowd-pleasing sophomore album, which sees Charli obliterate any lingering doubt that she can’t hang with today’s top-tier pop stars.
 
Abandoning the fascinating but alienating alt pop stylings of her debut, Sucker instead sees Charli appropriating from pop punk and new wave, which she combines with a sugar-coated 90s nostalgia trip. Yet for all its derivativeness, the record still feels immediate and current, partly due to the incongruity of these musical stylings in present-day pop, but also thanks to the anachronisms snuck in here and there – an 8 bit sample on ‘Gold Coins’, the synths on ‘Boom Clap’. The record has few of her previous lyrical abstractions, instead favouring crowd-pleasing chant along choruses. On its own, Sucker is a fun, silly pop record with expertly crafted but shallow hooks. Yet, within the context of its mastermind’s oeuvre, so chock full of diverse influences and disparate styles, it becomes a masterclass in selling a personal identity distinct from a musical sensibility.
 
Where True Romance gave us Charli as pop’s alternative “it” girl, here, she styles herself as the ultimate teen queen. Songs like ‘London Queen’ and ‘Gold Coins’ rely on deliberately opaque references, defining her persona in terms of cultural signifiers and commercial iconography. Yet her cynical transformation into a globe-conquering pop product is offset by the joyousness of the songs, and her ability to sell the simple, ridiculous choruses she’s written for herself. She makes the most of every confident seduction or cocky put down, alternating between a melancholic lower register and a high, bratty whine. It’s a commanding, tour-de-force vocal performance. Sucker is self consciously commercial, serving up obvious cultural touchstones and accessible nostalgia, all helmed by a singer styling herself as the quintessential post-Britney pop star. Sucker therefore becomes a witty and thorough examination of what pop music means to us in 2014.
 
 
Like many recent big pop albums, Sucker at first plays as somewhat top-heavy. The opening six tracks, chock full of pre-release singles, are the most bombastic and distinct on the album. Right from the off, as the titular opening track screeches “Fuck you, Sucker!” we’re hurtled through a parade of kiss-offs and come-ons, from ‘Boom Clap’, to ‘Breaking Up’, via ‘Break the Rules’. Yet as the album reaches its centrepiece – the glorious roller-disco anthem ‘Doing It’ – the vulnerability behind the angst and bravado comes to the fore. To say tracks like album closer ‘Need Ur Love’ are emotionally perceptive is to stretch the bounds of credibility given the album’s admirable determination to never let up its relentless chase of hits. Yet, the songwriting gradually reveals the insecurity and confusion at the heart of her bluster, making the album a surprisingly compelling re-listen. 
 
Sucker is a love letter to the mainstream, to generational touchstones and to pop music. It’s entirely, gloriously derivative, and yet sonically interesting and somehow refreshing. Like the lolly-pop Charli XCX brandishes on the album cover, Sucker is obvious, sugary and delightful. But it’s almost entirely empty calories.
 

Petition asks The Sun to apologise for "transphobic" remark

0

A petition has been set up by Wadham undergraduate Rowan Davis, which demands that The Sun publically apologises for a purportedly “dehumanising” and “transphobic” comment made in an article published by the newspaper last week. It has so far reached over 25,000 signatories.

The Sun columnist Rod Liddle wrote of Emily Brothers, a blind, transgender Labour MP candidate, “Thing is though… being blind, how did she know she was the wrong sex?”

In response to this, Davis, a Trans Rep for the Oxford University LGBTQ Society, started a petition calling for The Sun’s Editor, David Dinsmore, to issue a public apology.

 Davis told Cherwell, “I have been overwhelmed at the hugely positive response to the despicable comment posted in The Sun by Rod Liddle concerning Emily Brothers. His article demonstrated completely the hatred that comes at the intersections of transphobia and ableism, ridiculing experiences of oppression for a quick laugh. I hope that this petition to ask for a direct and full apology from The Sun‘s editorial team will continue to grow, and that from it we can start to see changes in the way that trans people and those with disabilities are treated in the media.”

The petition argues that, “By reducing [Emily Brothers] down to her blindness and transness, Liddle has contributed to the dehumanisation and oppression of trans people and those with disabilities, and has helped uphold ableist and transphobic norms in politics.

“We deserve better, and as such The Sun should publically apologise.”

Brothers is standing to be MP for the constituency of Sutton & Cheam in the next General Election, and is the first openly transgender Labour candidate to run for parliament.

Liddle released a statement on Friday apologising for what he described as a “poor joke”, saying, “I wish Emily the very best and I’d definitely vote for her if I lived in Sutton and Cheam.”

Responding to this apology, Brothers wrote that she had “wondered aloud how he [Rod Liddell] knows he’s a man when he turns the light out. I believe strongly in press freedom. But it should hold the rich and powerful to account, not mock and undermine the vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

In reaction to Brothers’ response to Liddell’s apology, and due to the attention the petition received, Davis added an update on December 16th, which stated that “It is vital that we keep pressure up on the editors of The Sun to issue a full apology without reservations.” Having reached 25,000 signatures in just five days, the goal for the petition has been shifted to 35,000 signatures.

Davis launched the petition after Wadham student Tim Cannon posted a link to the original article in The Sun on the Facebook group NoHeterOx**.

The Sun has not responded to Cherwell’s request for comment.