Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 226

On breakups: Dumping exes and expectations

In a perverse way, I think I was excited for my first break up. I grew up on a cultural diet of Elle Woods turning her heartbreak into a career-defining moment, of tabloids eyeing celebrities’ post-divorce glow ups, of Taylor Swift lyrics dwelling on and romanticising her relationship mishaps until they become something iconic. I knew it would be sad, that there’d be some slamming doors and some nights cursing my ex’s name in the early hours of the morning, but I also somehow imagined breaking up with my first partner would be some epochal moment that would change me for the better. What I wasn’t ready for was just how traumatic both my first break up, and my ex’s response afterwards, would be.

My first relationship, in my last year of school, did in fact change me for the better, but that doesn’t make my experience any less painful, or any easier to talk about using conventional break up vocabulary. The bare bones of it is that my ex went from overwhelming affection for me to an extended silent treatment almost overnight, with very little apparent provocation, and I’m still assessing the psychological damage from that transition.

If one were in a romantic comedy or teen drama, the immediate aftermath of such an event might be going out on the town and ‘forgetting all about him’; I found such gestures well-intentioned but superficial, and I think pop culture sometimes undersells the loss of personhood involved in a break up. Such a large portion of my identity and emotions had been wrapped up with my ex that I had to completely start over in nearly every aspect of my life, a process that didn’t really happen in earnest until after I left school and its stifling environs. The flip side of this is that I don’t think my ex ever really saw me as a person with an identity outside of our relationship, and I unwittingly internalised that belief.

There’s a moment that stands out to me from when my ex and I met up, a year after we broke up, in an ill-advised attempt at closure: he told me about how my neediness and our mutual co-dependency during our relationship had damaged his relationship with his family, and I almost felt compelled to ask, “well, what about my family?” I don’t think he’d ever considered how his abrupt coldness towards me would affect my family, my friends, my performance in school, or any other non-romantic aspect of my life, because I only existed insofar as I was romantically and sexually available to him.

Beyond the fact of my post-break up identity crisis being so severe that no pop culture remedy could help, there’s also a sexualised and deeply misogynistic angle to this. I’ll never forget being told that our relationship consisted solely of my ex “thinking with his d*ck”, or a family member informing him that he should be dating a mutual friend of ours, who was dressed more modestly than me. My (perceived) sexual proclivity was made out to be the source of the issues in our relationship – this isn’t unusual, and I’m not the first one to bring the Madonna-Whore complex into discussions of heterosexual romance – but the standard slut-shaming mindset behind this began with my ex not having a sense of my personhood beyond my sexual availability. For all he was concerned, I was someone to have sex with, and someone who posed a threat through her sexuality, and once we had broken up and those roles were no longer relevant, I simply did not exist in his worldview. There’s a unique insecurity that comes from viewing your sexuality and your personal identity as one and the same, and it compelled me to objectify myself unnecessarily in my later sexual relationships, leading me to some coercive and unhealthy situations; so much of the ‘going out on the town’ narrative revolves around reclaiming your sexuality, but fails to account for how the trauma of losing someone can have ramifications for your sense of sexual identity. For me, valuing myself as an individual independently of my ex while celebrating my sexuality is still, three years later, a balance I find hard to strike.

I didn’t exist wholly as a person within my ex’s mind, and whenever I made an attempt to sort things out between us after we broke up, it felt like I was viewed as some kind of material annoyance he had to get rid of, rather than someone genuinely wanting to improve the situation for us both. I’m not claiming that my conduct was perfect in that relationship, nor that it isn’t ever healthy to spend some time blocked on social media after a breakup; however, there is a point in time at which extended use of the silent treatment becomes emotional abuse. On the rare occasions when my ex did deign to speak to me about our unfinished business, I always felt like I was one misstep, one word that he could twist, away from never being able to speak with him ever again, and thus I didn’t give free rein to my emotions, especially anger.

The cultural narrative, especially for women, is overwhelmingly that we should be ‘the bigger person’ after break ups, and work on constructing our identities independently of the past, and it’s good advice for the most part. However, if we’re always trying to be the conciliatory ones, the peacemakers, then there’s never any room for us to express how we actually feel, especially if those emotions are ones that easily fall into the ‘crazy ex-girlfriend’ trope. In my case, I spent so much time trying to reach a place where I could interact politely with my ex in public without wanting to don a disguise and exit through the back door, that I never really got true closure, as I never confronted him with the reality of how his actions had affected me – that would have been perceived as ‘too angry’, and would have made the situation worse. The conventional, linear narrative of getting over a break up allows very little room for holding one’s ex to account – the important element is that you’re ‘over it’, and no longer hold any hard feelings.

The feeling of being inches away from a landmine has persisted long after I made peace with the break up itself. Even though as a writer I operate with respect to journalistic ethics and multiple people will have approved this draft before it is published, there is still a cerebral nervousness within me about how I might be perceived as a woman condemning a man’s conduct in a romantic relationship. One of my earliest memories of social media involves the release of Taylor Swift’s Red, when I’d just turned twelve. All of a sudden, as a nascent Swiftie I was exposed to endless discussions of which male celebrities these exquisite songs of love and loss I loved so much were about, whether Swift was manipulatively portraying herself as a victim of their behaviour, and whether she should have released the songs at all, with little to no focus on the music itself. I’m aware that my ex and I are not A-list celebrities and I will never be subjected to anything like the same level of scrutiny as Taylor Swift, but that early experience has still made me viscerally aware that there is a ‘right’ way for women to talk about male behaviour. If we express in our art or writing our negative emotions towards an ex, we’re being too ‘aggressive’ or trying to embarrass him; if we try to analyse and make sense of our experiences, we’re ‘living in the past’ or secretly want to get back together. Going through heartbreak is something noble, but only if the heartbroken person behaves like the perfect victim afterwards, never too forgiving of her ex nor too hostile.

I resent the fact that pop culture tells us that getting over a break up is akin to self-improvement. In the words of one of my favourite musicals, The Last Five Years, “maybe there’s somewhere a lesson to learn / but that doesn’t change the fact”. My experiences have undoubtedly been instructive in how to navigate relationships as a woman, as a writer, and as a human being, but that doesn’t reduce the deep trauma of the break up, or of the emotional isolation I experienced afterwards. It didn’t help that there seemed to be no narrative I could point to in film, television or music, which depicted someone going through such an acute loss of identity, or who had developed such fear of speaking up about their experiences. Next time you meet someone going through a break up, think beyond the narratives of ‘getting over it’ being an uncomplicated and linear process, and remember that there may be ramifications beyond what you see represented in pop culture.

Artwork credit: Ben Beechener.

The World According to Rusty… Week 5

This mildly comedic column has been written by a drag queen agony aunt. It is not for the faint hearted and contains sensitive topics which may cause distress to some readers. Be prepared for themes of dirty douche water, laxative abuse, possessed pendants, and my mother.


Hate men? Losing the will to live? Waiting for the inevitable shortage of SSRIs due to global supply chain issues so that you can finally kill yourself in peace? Good old Aunt Rusty is here to help! (She cooks up prescription drugs on the side).

Rusty Kate is Oxford’s premier cum-filled crossdresser, known for turning looks, tricks, and straight men seven nights a week. She’s decided to take a short break out of her busy schedule as vice-scat consultant at the Oxford Counselling Service to act as Cherwell’s Dragony Aunt, and help sort out your pathetic little lives one horrendously uncensored column at a time.

Remember to submit your questions through linktr.ee/rustykatedrag – you’re guaranteed complete anonymity. Unless you cheered for Miss Take during the last Drag & Disorderly show. I know where you live. Right, onto the issues that the SU are currently writing some very important petitions to the university about…


My boyfriend refuses to shave his hole and douche regularly. I know I’m not the best in bed, but I keep fairly trim and proper. Can you help out? Should I break up with him?


If you turn him inside out, the hair won’t be an issue. Hiding laxatives in his food will solve the douching problem, but we’ll have to get more creative for the hair.

Light a few candles, then get down to business – cover your hand in Nair like it’s talcum powder and wear him like a surgical glove. There’s no need to break up with him; he’ll be as hairless as Matt Lucas’s shaft. Or as hairless as Jada Pinkett Smith. Don’t worry, I don’t mind a slap in bed.


My flatmate keeps borrowing my jewellery without asking, and it’s starting to really peeve me off. I’ve spoken to her about it politely, but she always laughs it off like I’m joking. How should I address this?


We’re gonna need a bit of creative sleight of hand. The first thing you’ll need is a flight to rural Botswana. There you will speak to His Highness, the Most Sacred of Truth Sayers, Lord Balthazar (or as I like to call him, mother). He’s an old friend and sensual lover of mine, and shall deliver an amulet to you – trust me, it’ll match any outfit.

Fly back, leave it laying around the flat, then just wait until she tries it on and delivers her soul to the depths of hell, trapped for all of eternity in an ancient blood curse. There she shall experience the pain of a thousand orphans crawling through a woodchipper. She’ll wake up with the brain of your vegetative grandfather after spending 15 minutes sticking his head in the large hadron collider.

Party to privilege, and privileged to party: College balls and socioeconomic exclusion

0

Today, while the ‘traditional’ barriers to Oxford that state school students face are slowly being eroded, even once here, many financial obstacles remain firmly in place to separate students into the haves and have nots. The phenomenon of college balls is perhaps one of the best illustrations of this division.

Last weekend, as I walked along Cornmarket in the late evening, in the sky above me were brilliant cascades of fireworks; live music filled the warm air, and I could imagine, from the laughter that filtered over the rooftops, that drinks were flowing freely.  A quick check of social media showed me what I had expected – many college balls were in full swing. There were Ferris wheels. Acrobatic dancers. Ball gowns. Tailored suits. Live music. Open bars. And then I pulled up my news app and saw the latest updates on the unfolding cost of living crisis engulfing the country. I began to realise the hypocrisy of the university I am a member of. Its reputation of excellence and its infamous ‘experience’ exist in nothing but name for its most vulnerable students, and exclude those who cannot afford the associated costs. 

My college, Regent’s Park, has the cheapest ball in Oxford, but even that’s still £50. Many of my peers from other colleges tell me of prices well into the £200 and £300s, if not more. This is in addition to the consideration of an often expensive outfit. Even something as rightly controversial as trashing could be said to be far more financially accessible, and therefore even something which generates a sense of equality, when compared to the extravagance of college balls. The disarray of university policy with regards to socio-economically exclusive activities is very real. The social exclusion of those students who, understandably, can’t afford these price tags will only exacerbate the imposter syndrome faced at this university. As will the enjoyment of students who decided to endure the burden of cost: those who didn’t bat an eyelid at the price tag will enjoy a carefree experience, but those who spent maybe two entire weekly budgets on it will carry the nagging thought of the exorbitant cost throughout the night. Some colleges even force students off their premises and out of their accommodation for the duration of the ball, sometimes into the early hours of the morning. They show no regard for their students’ wellbeing or consideration for what they will do if they cannot afford to attend their college ball. 

I concede that there are many people who do enjoy college balls, from many demographics,  and this is not to say that they are undertaking a morally wrong endeavour. Instead, I would pose to them the idea that if the revelry of college balls was toned down, this would do away with the need to subsidise expensive tickets and allow the resources used for this to be redirected towards arguably better causes, such as charitable endeavours or initiatives which benefit the whole student community in a longer-term way. Perhaps more student support services could be funded, better day-to-day meals provided, or even lower cost housing or vacation residence. Surely this would be a better use of resources, even if some of the opulence of the ball had to be stripped back? A dinner in Pembroke Hall, for example,  costs £6.67 and has to be purchased six days a week when living in college on-site – subsidising this would solve a more immediate and constant issue.

Yet the persistent and explicit drive towards ever increasing grandeur is a problem emblematic of the ills facing the University of Oxford and its community today, alongside the upper socio-economic echelons of society more generally. Students do not need a ball to engage socially with their community – most balls are held on college grounds which are free to access normally. But do you need a ball to get impressive photos for Instagram? Much of the evidence I see online attests to this. Oxford students share a unique approach to social media. It seems that academic competitiveness manifests itself in a rivalry to have the ‘best’ time, and most importantly prove to other students that this is definitely the case. The need for validation from social media is a trap that far too many Oxford students have fallen into. So, are they really just focusing on enjoyment? 

Balls are a manifestation of the hierarchical independent school culture that persists in Oxford. It is unfortunate that many haven’t realised the joy of a less elitist social activity. “It’s never worth the money to go to a big college ball – you pay for the novelty of the thing,” one student remarked to me. There are many other ways to have a fun, sociable evening, if you can bear to forgo the novelty: a picnic at Port Meadow or University Parks, perhaps. And Formal Hall thankfully offers a relatively affordable means of enjoying occasions centred on historic tradition at Oxford. So what is the need for college balls – after all, aren’t they just a glorified bop? I sympathise with the heavy workload Oxford burdens students with, and the conflicting social schedules that are hard to coordinate; it can be a welcome reprieve to have an event organised and know that you will be among friends – if you can afford to throw money at the problem. 

Students arriving from private schools have on average been the recipient of three times the educational resources than their state school counterparts. They also can be the beneficiary of scholarships reserved for former students of certain private schools. A study found that in Oxford preliminary exams, ex-private school students achieve proportionately better results.  Ex-state school students, like myself, who have had to work hard to reach the level of our privately educated peers may not be able to contemplate spending an entire afternoon and evening at a ball. State school students also have to contend with private school alumni’s domination of the University’s sports and music clubs and their associated socials. It could be said then that social interaction at Oxford is itself a source of inequality. Is it a coincidence that those private school students that often are more likely to have the financial luxury of going to these grand social affairs are (marginally) outdone in final exams by ex-state school students, despite the uneven playing field?

Things don’t have to be this way. There are many alternatives to the dichotomy of having an expensive, extravagant ball, or not having or going to a ball at all. For example, Wadham has a ‘Ball for All’ scheme which allows students who would struggle with the cost to purchase reduced price tickets, though these are still £50, so not exactly ‘for all’. I do believe that potential future schemes, inspired by Wadham’s but which go much further, and combined with other cost-friendly initiatives can lead to a much fairer and healthier ball season in Oxford. On Facebook I have already seen groups set up dedicated to borrowing and sharing ball outfits, which eliminate much of the additional costs that a ball ticket generally entails. Still, maybe even the concept of a garden party, or something informal but with an aurora of occasion, could be a better solution.

College balls in all their grandiose extravagance are outdated. I have decided not to attend my college ball, despite its relative affordability, and despite the social exclusion that arises from that decision. Instead, I will be donating what I can to a charity close to my heart: Rainbow Migration, who help vulnerable LGBTQ+ individuals migrate to safe countries. I am privileged to be able to consider redirecting the cost into a donation, but my point still stands. And so does the principle. I have no desire to be party to an archaic tradition that entrenches the internal division that is so readily persistent in Oxford. Time for change can always be and is always now. 

Image credit: Queens ball / CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

In between practicality and principle: a partial observer’s advice for the French left

Between “la peste et le cholera” there are no good options. This was the pithy slogan brandished by a protester who felt that the choice between the two candidates in the second tour of the French presidential election was no better than having to choose whether to have the plague or cholera. Forced to decide between two equal evils, in this protestor’s perspective, is really no choice at all. This reflects the prevailing sentiment of the French people toward the second tour – in which the two candidates from the first round with greatest share of the popular vote go through to the final round – of their country’s presidential election. Even those who reluctantly voted Macron in order to faire barrage (blockade) against the far right did so with a heavy heart. In short, the second round became a vote of necessity.

This was certainly the case on the left – the two final candidates in the ring represented the centre-right (despite Macron’s attempt at creating some strange depoliticised ‘neither right nor left’ version of politics) and the far right. But in the first round, left-wing candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon came third by a hair’s breadth: he had polled at 22%, placing him somewhere between 0.8 and 1.2% behind far-right candidate Marine le Pen, at 23%. His narrow failure to qualify as one of the two most successful candidates, which would have put him through to the second round, is symptomatic of the stagnation of French politics which has been growing over the past five years. Inevitably, the second round of the presidential election  overlooked the issues which tend to concern the left: there was a telling silence around issues of the environment, improving public service, workers’ rights, and France’s abhorrent pattern of femicides.

Why, though, did Mélenchon fail to make the final cut? Not, in fact, because of the strength of the right, or even the centre, but because of disunity among the left. This is the fault both of candidates who failed to withdraw and of the electorate who failed to put aside ultimately minor differences (especially compared to the ideological gulf that separates any of these candidates from Macron, let alone the openly Islamophobic Le Pen). Six candidates stood on the left in the first round, amassing approximately a third of the total vote. Mélenchon was the heavy favourite – the other candidates swept up around 10% of the electoral crumbs. Crumbs though they may be, their agglomeration could have put the left through to the second round, and with some comfortable breathing room. Consider for a moment this entirely fictional scenario: if the entire left-wing electorate had voted for Mélenchon, or if all of  the other left-wing candidates had dropped out, Mélenchon would have amassed a greater slice of the electoral pie than the incumbent Macron himself. Instead, Ecologist Yannick Jadot polled at 4.4%; anticapitalist Philippe Poutou at 0.8%; Workers’ struggle candidate Nathalie Arthaud at 0.6%; Communist Fabien Roussel at 2.4%, and Socialist Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo at 1.9%.

This is not to say there are no differences among the candidates (there are), nor that Mélenchon is faultless. Indeed, I am rather resistant to  several aspects of his foreign policy – something Jadot has railed against, particularly with regard to Mélenchon’s ‘non-aligned’ geopolitical position given the divisions cutting at the heart of the world order (I refer specifically to Russia’s horrific war on Ukraine). But the point of this article is not to examine the specific policies of each candidate – in any event, the time to do that has come and gone. Mélenchon’s programme was complete, extensive, had been cross-checked by NGOs – specifically climate NGOs – and declared feasible. He was the only left-wing candidate who was polling at anywhere higher than 15%, and, as I keep insisting (sorry), the differences among the left are minuscule in comparison to those between left and right. And I do believe that everyone on the left was severely disappointed with the options they were presented with during the second round. Had they read the polls, they would have known that voting for other candidates on the left would actively harm the chances of seeing any left-wing candidate making it through to the second round. This, in turn would make it far more likely that centrist/centre-right Macron (who was always going to make it through) would face up against an openly racist, homophobic, climate crisis-denying candidate, thus making the famous ‘presidential debate’ a chance for him to combat these inflammatory ideas with cool reason, rather than facing any serious challenges to his policies. I would venture to say Macron’s wager was precisely this: having refused to participate in the first round of debate, he knew he would not face a serious and face-on political challenge from the left, and counted instead on showing himself as the voice of reason against Le Pen’s divisive, choleric, and indeed unfeasible, ideas.

As for the electorate: in an election, there are two key axes you have to consider: principle and action-potential (which might also be labelled ideological and pragmatic respectively). Anyone who is actively engaged in politics surely believes they are out to improve people’s lives (I have a very, very hard time believing this about the far-right, but I suppose they would say they are trying to make a ‘safer’ world by removing ‘enemies’ from the apocalyptic universe they whip up in some virtual reality lab – in which one risks being beaten up (probably by an immigrant) the second one leaves  home). Let’s, then, use the left as an example. All the candidates ran on a basis of wanting to increase social equality, and reduce environmental catastrophe – they each presented slightly different ways of achieving these aims, but these issues were their meat and potatoes, so to speak. So if you are voting on the left – a core principle of which is solidarity – a desire to improve the lives of those most marginalised members of society. That could be because you are part of this demographic, or because you are ideologically inclined that way.

By way of analogy, permit me a small digression. Imagine I am tasked with designing a car to drive along a desert road from point A to point B as fast as possible. To be successful, the car must a) be fast and b) be able to drive well in a desert. A fast car that doesn’t drive well in a desert will be useless, and a car that drives well in a desert but isn’t fast won’t be much good either. My point is that you have to try and translate your aim into something that achieves what you wish to see implemented within the system you are given. You should of course be making constant effort to change the system – if a desert is not a good environment for a car (it isn’t), then you should be trying, between races, to pave the road. But the time to complain about not having a paved road, and thus refusing to design a desert-appropriate car, is not two minutes before the race. Similarly, the time to complain about Mélenchon being insufficiently revolutionary, as some bemoaned, and thus voting for a candidate who will poll 0.6%, knowing that this effectively amounts to lending your vote to something you abhor (the far right) is, to me, utterly illogical.

I am not an apologist for a purely pragmatic approach to politics. But when faced with unity or annihilation, it is time to put aside minor differences, and think about ultimate aims – if not for ourselves, then for those who will suffer under the opponent’s policies. I am certain that everyone on the left would rather have seen Mélenchon face Macron – even if the former hadn’t won – if only to have two weeks debating issues that have been sidelined by the incumbent’s administration, and metaphorically spat upon by his opponent. 

Going forward, the left in particular needs to think about how it can most effectively see policies implemented that align with its overall vision. For there is, I would hold, an overall vision, but, like an impressionist painting, the whole can be perceived only from afar, rather than within an increasingly fragmenting swirl of similarly coloured mush. Perhaps this ‘afar’ is where we are now – where the far right has amassed an unprecedented 41% of the vote in the second round and the right is once again in power for five years. Hopefully, this dire state of affairs will allow the left to see the common ground they share, now that they’re being confronted with something which they find so alienating. It does seem things are moving in this direction, with a growing left-wing coalition presenting itself for the legislatives in June. We will see how the ballots are cast.

Image credit: Place Au Peuple / CC BY-SA 2.0 via flickr

Faces of Oxford: an afternoon with DJ Cuppy

0

DJ Cuppy is a busy woman. “I flew back in from Monaco yesterday” she tells me as we prepare for a photoshoot in her lush North Oxford house. Later that evening, she’s DJing at an Oxford Ball. “And tomorrow, I’m back in London for my show on 1Xtra”. It seems surprising that she finds time for anything else, but along with music she runs the Cuppy Foundation, a charity which last year fed 70,000 Nigerian children a day. On her days off, she rubs shoulders with celebrities like Anthony Joshua, flying across the world on lavish holidays. She says that Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s founder, called her the most influential black woman on the platform.  She also happens to be a graduate student, here in Oxford.

Florence “Cuppy” Otedola, 29, is the daughter of Nigerian oil tycoon Femi Otedola. Born in Lagos, she moved to London at age 13 and is currently undertaking her third degree, following a BA in Economics at King’s College, London, and a Masters in Music at New York University with a MSc in African Studies at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford.

When I meet her, she’s impossibly charming and – decked out in her trademark all-pink – impossible to miss. At any given question, she launches into a beginning/middle/end monologue so effortless it seems rehearsed, and she pretty much directs her own photoshoot, pointing out the spots with the best lighting and moving at two-poses-a-second (much to our relief, as inexperienced students).

While education has clearly been a big part of Cuppy’s life, it may seem initially at odds with her lavish celebrity lifestyle. However, she makes no effort to hide her student status – recent Instagram posts have seen study sessions interspersed with videos of club appearances and interviews (with, of course, the caveat that the studying was done in her family’s home in Monaco). She told me that sometimes she felt she was living “between two lives”; Cuppy the student and Cuppy the DJ, even doing research and working on essays backstage at shows.

Here, in Oxford, it is Cuppy the student that clearly shines through. She tells me about her thesis, on mobilisation strategies for women in Nigerian politics, and her other academic interests. In fact, she explains that one of the reasons she came to this degree in Oxford was because it involved field research – something she hadn’t done before. 

In every way, Oxford life seems like an escape for her. Her home in Oxford – while undoubtedly an upgrade on standard student digs –  is a far cry from her life in London, a home filled with pink and award cabinets, not to mention an entire recording studio. “Oxford allows me to be a little bit more present. And, you know, yeah, I think it’s really nice that sometimes, what is expected of me as an Oxford student is to just learn, rather than what’s expected of Cuppy which is to perform and deliver.”

DJ Cuppy at the LMH ball – Image credit: Riya Kataria

That being said, with nine million Instagram followers – whom she calls her “Cupcakes” – alongside a host of high-profile roles such as Pepsi’s “DJ Ambassador”, her fame is hard to escape. On Radio 1Xtra, she finds herself “every weekend talking to millions of people, then I’m on stage of festivals, DJing with thousands of people.” With the weight of such an enormous following, does she find it hard to reconcile her public persona with her private one? “What I really struggle with is informal settings” she says. “That mental state of pressure and performance sometimes isn’t needed. And I find it hard to turn it off”.

However, her biggest impact is not in Oxford; in 2017, she founded the Cuppy Foundation. The charity started with her personally sponsoring seven young fans. Then, she excitedly recounts that “we started getting hundreds of applicants…I couldn’t just keep sending people money from my account”. Eventually, the Foundation became more structured and began fundraising from outside, joining with Save the Children to take advantage of their infrastructure.

One major event was the Cuppy Gold Gala, a fundraising event held at the Hilton in Abuja and attended by many of Nigeria’s upper crust, including her billionaire father Femi, vice-president Yemi Osinbajo, and Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest person. “I kid you not, by chance,” she says, “I happened to raise 14 million pounds.”

Eventually, she partnered with Save the Children, as well as the United Nations, to deliver programs such as malnutrition awareness, breastfeeding sensitivity training for religious leaders, and COVID PPE to disadvantaged communities in Nigeria. The Foundation’s website describes her as “a beacon, a light for those in darkness, a home for those without shelter, a shield for the defenseless.” 

So what’s next for Cuppy? She hasn’t released any music since 2021. While she took a break from DJing over Hillary, she’s still found the balance difficult: ”even just coming in this afternoon, I’ve got to rush back for a gig, then I’ve got to come back tomorrow, then I’ve got to rush back to the BBC…I’m 30 this year, right. So I maybe don’t have that zest that I used to.”

While she has a massive interest in education, she’s not sure that she’ll immediately carry on as a student. She’s been offered a fellowship at a prestigious US university, and Cambridge are using her foundation as a case study for their philanthropic centre. She says she’ll find it very hard to step out of academia, but “you know, Isaac, I need a break. This is my third degree, my second master’s, and I need a break. I’m empowered but exhausted.

Image credit: Daniel Stick

No-confidence motion in SU Vice President passes first reading

0

A motion of no confidence in the Student Union’s Welfare and Equal Opportunities Officer has passed its first reading at the Student Council, with 25 votes in favour out of 36. If the motion passes its second reading in Seventh Week, a referendum of students would be called Ninth Week.

The motion argues that Keisha Asare caused “substantial disruption” in the Keble College community and acted “inappropriately” for one representing students at a university level. This comes after a series of essay-writing workshops Asare pledged in her manifesto to set up either did not go ahead, or were disrupted by her failure to send and respond to key emails.

Keble JCR voted to bring a motion of no confidence against Asare with 45 votes in favour, 5 abstentions, and no votes against. The President of Keble JCR, Thomas Morris, stressed to Cherwell that the motion was not intended to be a judgement on Asare specifically, but to make a broader point about expected conduct from Sabbatical Officers towards students. “We want to acknowledge with this motion the importance of the trust we put into Sabbatical Officers to support JCRs and represent them at a University level,” he added.

At the start of Michaelmas Term, Keble JCR accepted Asare’s pitch to trial a series of essay workshops intended to provide students with guidance about the standard of essays expected at Oxford. Four workshops were planned: two for students studying under the Humanities Division, one for medical students, and one for courses under the Medical, Physical, and Life Sciences (MLPS) Division. While Keble JCR booked the rooms and advertised the workshops, Asare was responsible for finding and preparing tutors for the workshops.

The motion says that Asare failed to share crucial information with tutors and the JCR, which disrupted the workshops. One of the humanities workshops was also nearly cancelled, as Asare did not send the necessary information to the required tutor. Asare did not tell the JCR that the tutor arranged to run the MLPS was unavailable, leading to the event not taking place at short notice. The tutor holding the medicine workshop dropped out and the motion says Asare did not send their replacement the slideshow needed to run the session.

Speaking at the Student Council meeting, Asare said that a personal emergency meant that she was taking time off work during this period. Because she had taken emergency leave, she said no arrangements had been made for someone to step in to work on her behalf. 

Asare said that if students voted in favour of a motion of no confidence against her, she would be unable to complete a handover to her successor at the end of her tenure as she would no longer be employed by the SU. She also said that since the intention of the motion was to improve relationships between JCRs and Sabbatical Officers, there were other ways to achieve this than a vote of no confidence in her.

Keisha Asare has been approached for comment.

Love Island goes sustainable?

0

The beloved (well, depends who’s asking) show Love Island has announced that, when it returns for its eighth UK season, it will partner with eBay to clothe its contestants. This is quite a change from the previous partner ISawItFirst – a quintessential fast fashion brand where dresses start from under a fiver – and an extremely interesting one coming from a show that is, let’s face it, more or less the spiritual home of fast fashion. With contestants almost never repeating outfits despite the multiple daily costume changes required by island life and one of the most famous ex-Islanders, Molly-Mae, having been appointed ‘Creative Director’ for fast fashion juggernaut PrettyLittleThing, not to mention assorted other former contestants regularly partnering with fast fashion brands on a smaller scale, it’s not a show that has history with slower fashion. It could be a sign of the times – the show’s target demographic, is, after all, the generation who made charity shops fashionable – although I would like to remind you that outside the Oxford fashion bubble, thriftingg is still somewhat outré, with a lot of people still turning to PLT &co. for their shopping needs. It could also be a bit of a PR stunt – as a show, Love Island isn’t exactly known for setting a good example for just about anything, so the sudden decision to eschew fast fashion seems rather out of character – albeit one which, interestingly, received far less attention both online and in the think-piece-y news than you might expect, given what a hot topic our shopping habits continue to be. The eBay partnership could be an attempt to clean up their image as a byword for single-use fashion, a reputation which wasn’t helped by the constant criticism surrounding Molly-Mae’s work for PrettyLittleThing – a brand which has repeatedly attracted controversy for its low-cost, low-quality clothing and even worse working conditions. 

Whatever the motivation, however, the end result is the same – eBay will become as over-populated as Depop and we shall all have to seek refuge at Vinted. Just kidding. Although there is truth in the idea that this deal could help popularise shopping second hand amongst those who (amenable to influencers) have previously been fast fashion loyalists, it seems unlikely that the show will make a big song and dance about sustainability, as it’s not really in keeping with their vibe. This means that we might see a bigger increase in more sustainable shopping as a simple trend, rather than being motivated by ecological concerns. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing – anything which helps wean people off the fast fashion mentality is obviously good – but it does present an interesting dynamic.

I, for one, will be interested to see where they go with the styling. One thing about having a single brand as your sponsor is that it gives the cast a relatively cohesive look – something that would be a lot harder to pull off from a trawl through eBay’s depths. If the contestants are allowed to wholly style their own outfits on the show, would it be from a big wardrobe stuffed with random finds ? Would they organise them by colour, decade, or style ? The potential for a ‘dressed in the dark’ moment looms large, especially given the current taste for maximalist fashion – a look which, though effective if well thought through, can sadly often end up looking as though you’ve lost a fight with a washing line. But – think positive! – it could also be an excellent chance to crack the homogeneity of the Love Island look – and, much appreciated by a material girl like myself, an opportunity to break the show’s long-running relationship with the flimsy polycottons so beloved of fast fashion retailers – boosting the positive environmental impact even further. Another potential issue is of the look itself – a lot of people use eBay to buy bits and bobs which are hard to find in traditional shops, but the Love Island aesthetic has previously been super of the era and interesting when you think that eBay (though a good refuge from getting absolutely reamed on Depop) isn’t necessarily known as a fashion marketplace. Of course, this whole shebang utterly fails to address the elephant in the room: the way Love Island functions as a twenty-four-hour-catwalk, with contestants refusing to wear even the same pyjamas for more than a few days. Arguably, if they wanted to advocate a truly healthy example of fashion they’d give the contestants some sort of capsule wardrobe and have them make do with that. But part of the show’s appeal is the constantly changing outfits – with the run being the best part of two months, the contestants would probably start to look a little like cartoon characters if confined to a finite wardrobe – and it’s clear that the visual stimulation of seeing conventionally attractive people in shiny new clothes is a not inconsiderable part of the entertainment function of the show.

 But at the end of the day, anything that turns people away from fast fashion is a good thing overall, and if Love Island is what it takes – who am I to question it?

Image credit: TaylorHerring / CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0 via flickr

Beyond the Etonians: Simon Kuper’s Chums in today’s Oxford

0

CW: classism, racism, sexual harassment

Simon Kuper of the Financial Times tells me he is an unlikely candidate to draw back the curtain on what he calls “the Oxocracy”. A card-carrying member of the establishment he shines a light on, he knows that the system he condemns also benefits him. Besides, raised in the Netherlands, Kuper came to Oxford equipped with an outsider’s eye. More than just an exposé of an institution he “had a wonderful time at” or a compilation of party gossip, Chums is meant to provide the necessary context to grasp today’s ruling class.

Throughout, he argues that a unique mix of public school arrogance and Oxford frivolity produced a dominant generation of politicians. Its ranks include David Cameron, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Dominic Cummings. The book speaks of how they were shaped by the University and how Brexit was born. It also deals with life at the University as it was then – a life perhaps all too recognisable for today’s undergraduates.

Arriving in Oxford just as Johnson and Gove left, but in time to catch Rees-Mogg, Kuper notes that these characters were infamous even as students. From his desk at Cherwell, he had an early front row to the antics of many of today’s front bench. Boris Johnson was one of the most prominent undergraduates of his day. Jeremy Hunt was the boring and bureaucratic president of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA). Gove and Rees-Mogg were constantly lampooned by yesteryear’s Cherwell, a publication then characterised by constant irony and an obsession with these big personalities. 

The men who grew up to become these characters were, in some respects, a diverse bunch. Some, like Cameron, were blue-blooded representatives of the hereditary elite. Others, like Gove, were products of the post-war meritocracy. This mix of hereditaries and aspirationals had fuelled the upper classes throughout British history, and through close relationships and favourable institutions kept a stranglehold on much of the establishment.

Yet, as much as there were differences between them, they had more in common. Nearly all were male. All were white. Almost all belonged to the ‘elite’ even before arriving. In the composition of its student body, the Oxford of Chums is a far cry from today’s University. Kuper recalls asking the only Afro-Caribbean undergraduate in his college what the percentage of Afro-Caribbeans at the University was; the student retorted, “Percentage? There are six Afro-Caribbean undergraduates at the entire University”.

The history which the Oxford Tories learned revolved around themselves too. ‘Men like them’ had ruled over nearly a quarter of the earth’s surface for much of the past century. Spoon-fed a diet of imperialist nostalgia and martial glory from birth, the grey mediocrity of the 1970s taunted them.

However, Oxford Tories went to University in a decade of renewed confidence for the upper classes. The dismal 1970s had been replaced by Thatcher’s 1980s British exceptionalism. Here was a group of men and women who had seen Brideshead Revisited on TV and were determined to make Oxford theirs again. Kuper emphasises that even then it was all an anachronism. It was a conscious effort at imitation of their forefathers, not ‘authenticity’. Without the sense of wartime sacrifice and duty that had characterised the upper classes of old, it ended up being a farcical parody. While most students of that time were listening to The Smiths, this small group set out to copy Sebastian Flyte. 

The defining consequence of 1980s Oxford Tories was Brexit. Birthed as an undergraduate project, it gave meaning and justification to the lives of men whose views of England no longer matched reality. Also, as Kuper notes, the ideals behind Brexit assured them personally of a future. They claimed ownership over Westminster; Brussels was hostile to men like them.

 The University provided an easy backdrop. Inseparable from the men that inhabited it, Oxford shaped their way of life. It rewarded style over substance, and rarely asked for much depth. The book explains how the academic standards of Oxford in the 1980s were different. Tutors were often unqualified, alcoholic, and brutally snobbish. One tutor ‘unapologetically preferred tall blond public schoolboys and girls’. A don at Kuper’s college had a reputation both for exposing himself and trying to recruit students into the intelligence services.

And, while providing a golden ticket to the elite, the entrance was rigged against almost everyone else. For some, admission was guaranteed from birth. Even if things went wrong, privilege would save them. An anecdote from the book mentions Toby Young (now a polemic social commentator). Having failed to meet his offer from Brasenose of two Bs and a C, he was at risk of losing his place. A phone call from his father, Baron Young of Dartington, saved his spot. Ironically, Baron Young happens to be the man responsible for writing the 1945 Labour manifesto and coining the term ‘meritocracy’.  For those who did not belong to the narrow upper and upper-middle classes, entrance to Oxford was restricted if not impossible. 

Yet more striking for today’s Oxonian is how little has changed. It is true that the largest personalities of today are no longer Etonians cosplaying Evelyn Waugh. Yes, the student body is, slowly but surely, becoming more representative of the wider population. And, as Kuper mentions, today’s admissions are four times as competitive, fairer, and much more international. But, fundamentally, the institutional structure of the University described in Chums, the incentives Oxford creates, and the undergraduate life it feeds are not all that different.

Kuper’s paragraphs on the ‘essay crisis’, the insignificance of lectures, and emphasis on rhetoric rather than deep academic learning refer to the Oxford of the 1980s. Yet,  they will ring as true for today’s undergraduates as they did then. At the time, Cherwell reported on the notoriety of Simon Stevens (now a former NHS chief executive) as a legendary tutorial faker who once got halfway through reading his essay before his partner revealed to the tutor that he was reading from a blank sheet of paper; the same anecdote was told by a tutor about a contemporary student only a few months ago. 

It goes beyond the structure of the classes and tutorials. PPE, a degree which then was considered to skate too thinly over three subjects in three years, continues to be criticised for the same reasons. With an academic year lasting just 24 weeks, depth is hard to achieve. With face-to-face time limited to just a few hours each week, the emphasis will always be more superficial. For many Oxford students, now as then, the most important parts of University life are those that take place outside the classroom, ranging from drama to rowing or student politics to socialising. A survey from Kuper’s time indicated that the average student worked on their degree for just twenty hours a week. This continues to be the norm for many students today, even if a tutor quoted in the book explains that the expectation is now forty.  

Like Kuper, this article is not meant to insult Oxford. The University is a wonderful place and, by many objective standards, the world’’s premier institute for scientific research. Yet, reading the book must raise questions for Oxonians today. If the structure of undergraduate life then had such adverse outcomes and is so worthy of condemnation – and the structure fundamentally hasn’t changed – what does that imply for Oxford now?

Kuper doesn’t just single out the University itself. He dedicates multiple chapters to the Union, a place that served as a political finishing school for many of the Oxford Tories. Failings in today’s cabinet are traced to habits encouraged then, from electioneering and ‘binning’ to an emphasis on rhetorical flair over substance, Yet those habits continue to be an intrinsic feature of the Union, even if those partaking have changed. I ask him if, now that Etonians no longer run the show, it’s fine that a place like the Union teaches you to ‘hack’ and ‘knife’. Kuper responds by highlighting greater inclusivity at the broader University, where 69% of those admitted are now from state schools. 

One wonders, however, how much this affects the outcome. Indeed, the participants have changed, but the place, once they arrive, hasn’t.  Like the University, the Union highlights its greater inclusivity – but the incentives and politics remain. In many ways it is student politics that has changed the least. This term will see Union members vote once again on whether slates should be banned, as they once were in Johnson’s day. 

Even the inclusivity increase is complex. The book mentions the cost of Union membership in the late 1980s being £65.  Adjusted for inflation, this is equivalent to £146. The current price of the membership is almost twice that, at £286. Even an ‘access’ membership costs £169.95. Meanwhile, the prominence of ‘hacks’ in Oxford life may have grown greater still. Kuper tells me of many of the big names then, “It’s not that I hated them. I just was not very aware of them. They were very far for me. I was very far from them. We had our own lives. I had a very happy life.”

Boris Johnson was exceptional precisely because he was one of the few undergraduates known to the wider student population. Today, social media allows many students to become ‘big names on campus’. Scandals rapidly become common knowledge, even as the permanence of the internet means the stakes are ever higher. To be sure, Cherwell would write pieces like 1988’s ‘Union hacks in five-in-a-bed romp shocker’ about Michael Gove. But its reach and frequency was a fraction of Oxfess’ today. 

Undoubtedly, Kuper is aware that many of the flaws in the University persist. In the final chapter of the book, he deals with “what is to be done”. Radically, he even proposes shuttering the institution and making it graduate or research only. He celebrates the Dutch or German systems while noting that they do not deliver close to the same level of academic excellence.  Nor, as Kuper is aware, are the best universities in these countries immune to similar accusations of elitism. He (rightly) notes that shutting Oxford would see different universities (Imperial, King’s College London, and so on) increase in prestige, as would-be Oxonians seek education elsewhere. 

What remains unclear from the book is if Kuper’s primary criticism of Oxford today is who gets a spot, or what the University does to students once they arrive. Despite arguing against the abolition of private schools, it seems the upper- and upper-middle class grip on Oxford bothers him most. However, as he writes repeatedly throughout, Oxford’s intake is changing. Each cohort is more reflective of wider society. What – broadly – hasn’t changed is the incentives students face upon matriculating and the structures within the institution that will shape them.

“To understand the man you have to know what was happening in the world when he was twenty.” The quote serves as Chums’ epigraph and summary.  In good Oxford fashion (and as Kuper acknowledges), the catchy Napoleonic quote is probably apocryphal. The book that results is entertaining, eminently readable, and very recognisable. Yet, for those of us who are twenty now in Oxford, it raises the question: faced with an all-too-similar environment, will we be different?

Image credit: Cherwell archival image

Let’s get physical: Review – Holding

“What pair of planets orbit around each other just because it’s convenient?” That’s the question that haunts Sarah, the protagonist of Holding, which opened on Tuesday at the Burton Taylor Studio. 

Written and directed by Oxford mainstay Kirsty Miles, Holding stars Erin Malinowski as Sarah, a physicist who appears to be happily married. Her husband Nick (Alex McGovern) – also a physicist – has just received the promotion that Sarah had been striving for, owing in large part to Sarah’s uncredited help with his research. Sarah couldn’t be more pleased (or so she says) but she soon becomes unsettled by recurring dreams of a pixieish figure (Jodie Tyler), who seems to want something from her.

Sarah begins sessions with a therapist (Mariya Sait), who asks Sarah to try something new: why not dance with the figure in her dreams? So she does. As Sarah and her dream counterpart spin and stretch and comfort each other, Sarah realises that something in her psyche is trying to get out – and that her marriage might be the thing holding it in.

The production runs just shy of an hour, which means that every inch of the story is compact: in a play the length of a TV pilot, Miles manages to paint the portrait of a marriage ruled by physical laws. Sarah and Nick move like the stage is a magnet and they are iron filings – they’re dragged about, colliding and separating, helplessly pulled by some larger force.

Miles’ direction takes advantage of the script’s scientific underpinnings. After all, the same laws apply in physics and in love: attraction, repulsion, momentum, entropy. Sarah and Nick move around the stage in ways that seem dictated by physics, whether they are sitting parallel or sliding apart in perfect synchrony. Meanwhile, Sarah and the dream figure mirror each other in more abstract ways, and their dance sequences (choreographed by Gillian Konko with improvised violin by Momo Ueda) bring to mind the softer symmetries of nature – the imperfect symmetry of a shell or a feather. If Sarah’s relationship with Nick is all about maintaining balance, the dream figure knocks that balance askew.

Malinowski and McGovern have remarkable chemistry as the central couple, every touch and glance between them glittering with heat, which is why the show’s conflict plays so convincingly: they both, at some level, want their relationship to hold together. Malinowski, as Sarah, has a childlike perceptiveness that makes her vulnerable to being overwhelmed; the world is too strong for her. She’s so thin-skinned she’s practically transparent. In contrast, McGovern’s Nick is the stereotypical hard-nosed scientist, whose muted anxieties manifest in his lowered brow and obsessive monitoring of his wife. Sarah’s therapist is played in fine form by Sait, with the low voice and slightly tilted head of every therapist you’ve ever met. Yasmin Ziv and Ava Smith (as Nick’s colleagues) appear mid-show to briefly bounce off the walls, much to the audience’s delight. 

The set changes are minimal and performed by the actors. The only furniture in Sarah and Nick’s apartment is a table and two chairs, although the space is cluttered with memorabilia of their life together, which scatters across the stage as their marriage dissolves. Luke Drago’s sharp lighting design lays bare the disorder of Sarah’s waking life, at odds with her dreams, in which moonlight seems to wash the stage clean. It is this contrast – between order and disorder, dark and light, inner and outer worlds – that threatens to pull Sarah apart.

As marriage continues to change as an institution, there is a need for theatre that explores it from a variety of perspectives. Holding takes up the cause – and it isn’t afraid to get physical. 

Holding continues its run in the Burton Taylor Studio until 28th May. Tickets are available here.

Wilde at heart: In Conversation with members of the Lincoln Drama Society

It’s practically a cliché to say that with such short and busy terms, there are more events happening in Oxford than any person could keep track of. Most people, quite sensibly, want a place at the well-known events—the major drama productions, the speakers at the Union who everyone’s heard of, the most opulent and extraordinary balls. But some love deserves to be spared for the events that aren’t as well publicised.

The Lincoln Drama Society’s performance of The Importance of Being Earnest isn’t a huge production—in fact, Ellie McDougal, who co-directs the play alongside Lara Hatwell, tells me that funding issues played an unexpectedly positive role in staging the play. “We experienced some issues with funding the play”, she tells me via email, “but the accommodations we had to make ended up really pulling the production together. With no funding for staging or lighting, we decided to do a naturalistic performance in Lincoln College’s ‘Beckington Room’—a beautiful, seventeenth-century panelled room that used to be the Rector’s lodgings. Complete with candles and a fireplace, the room has acted as a phenomenal set for Earnest – I cannot imagine the play without it now!”

First performed in 1895, this play by Oscar Wilde is a farcical comedy about the double lives of two young Victorian gentlemen, Algernon Moncrieff and Jack Worthing, and how these collide with their standard social obligations. Ellie elaborates on the play’s subtext, stating that “in one word, it is a play about language. Wilde’s genius lies in his ability to utilise linguistic symbols and Earnest is his best demonstration of that genius. The play’s characters use language to argue, to confess love, to tell the truth, to lie”.

She calls the play’s conclusion a display of “language’s emptiness and its power”, arguing that it dramatises Wilde’s philosophy as expressed in the essay “The Decay of Lying”, which argues that art’s purpose is “the telling of beautiful untrue things”. But Wilde’s play isn’t merely concerned with philosophical abstraction; Ellie tells me that while she loves Wilde’s work in general, she particularly likes this work “for how rigorous a social commentary it is… It is a play that reminds us of how our own lives are pure theatre”. She notes how the play is “entirely cynical” about the structures that Victorian society was built on, satirising its preconceptions about class, gender, and marriage. 

This is a point on which Liam Stewart, who plays the roles of the manservant Lane and the butler Merriman, agrees. For him, the play’s brilliance lies in its writing: “Full of paradoxes and often complete nonsense disguised in rhetoric, [the characters’ interactions] are hilarious and infuriating in equal measure. This makes it hard to root for anyone in particular, but also makes it impossible to hate any of the characters either, even though a lot of what they say is highly questionable.”

His roles, which serve as a more serious foil to the follies and eccentricities of the upper-class protagonists, also speak to Wilde’s use of the play as social commentary. They “highlight an important contrast between upper and working-class worlds in the play. Lane, especially, is a sobering juxtaposition to Algernon’s witticisms; pointing, without saying very much, to the triviality and callousness of Wilde’s upper-class characters”. Even though the roles of Lane and Merriman are comparatively minor, the silent shadow they cast over the play’s farcical schemes is part of what makes this work endure.

So what was the process of putting the play into production like? Ellie tells me that the Lincoln Drama Society staged Arthur Miller’s All My Sons last term, a serious drama exploring American society in the aftermath of World War Two, so they wanted to choose something that was dissimilar in tone and content. “Looking to the 1890s felt natural with how well fin de siècle writers handled satire and social commentary together,” she says, noting that Wilde’s play was “hilarious but still held its weight in 2022”, with its famous wit making it an easy choice. From this point on, the production ran smoothly, a fact which she attributes to how a rehearsal schedule was drawn up in advance, allowing everyone to know their roles clearly and prevent the production from interfering with academic work. “My academic interests lay broadly within theatre anyways, so directing a play feels quasi-productive to me”, she adds.

As someone who’s never been involved with Oxford’s drama scene, I find myself curious about how one might become a part of it. Ellie points to the Oxford University Dramatic Society (OUDS) as a starting point, as well as college drama societies, saying “university is a chance to try out new things and see what interests you, so don’t be intimidated if you don’t have a lot of acting experience, loads of people don’t”. Liam gives me a similar answer: “I would say just go for it”, he suggests. “I haven’t done much acting at all in school, but I think while at uni you might as well try new things! The rest of the cast have been very lovely and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the process so far.”

So what’s the play expected to be like? Liam tells me that viewers should expect “an evening of hilarity, a wonderful cast, and come away with a better understanding of when it is and isn’t appropriate to indulge in the rapid consumption of muffins”. Ellie’s answer, though, is briefer: “Be prepared to laugh so hard you pee yourself a little”.

Photograph by Ellie McDougal