Thursday, May 15, 2025
Blog Page 244

‘Uninhibitedly comical’ – Review: The Improv Squeeze

Anya Biletsky
-
0
‘Uninhibitedly comical’ – Review: The Improv Squeeze

Ever wondered what it would be like to experience a rock musical about a bear that escapes from a circus and ends up dancing with a pair of teenagers? This was the premise of Cops and Robbers Productions’ The Improv Squeeze on closing night of its five-day run in Week 7. 

The story varied from night to night depending on a prompt given by a member of the audience. On the night I went, the four-piece – actors Lili Herbert, Leo Kitay, and Vicky Stone, and musician Max Blansjaar – had to concoct and perform a musical related somehow to the childhood nightmare of an individual in the front row: the terrors of a Teletubby-like bear lurking in his closet.

Going in, I admit I had my doubts as to how successfully the team would combine the improvised story with the promised ‘rock musical’ aspect. However, The Improv Squeeze entirely surpassed my expectations. The performers responded assuredly to the prompt and delivered a cohesive, entertaining and – dare I say it – heart-warming musical which was received with barrels of laughter. 

To my surprise, the seating area in the Playhouse’s Burton Taylor Studio, which hosted The Improv Squeeze, was so packed that some audience members had to sit on the steps in the aisle for want of chairs. Even they seemed to have forgotten about their slightly uncomfortable seating arrangement by the end of the evening.

When the house lights went  down, the performers bounded onto the stage and explained to the audience how the show was going to work, encouraging us to tell them about a recurring nightmare they had had as a child. When they received their stimulus, the performers took a moment to get ready, tacitly agreeing on when to begin. A deep breath, and they sprung, and I mean sprung, into action. From the get-go, the show’s momentum did not waver.

Herbert, Kitay, and Stone are impressive improvisers with great comic timing and an infectious truckload of energy. Wearing funky blazers and a whole lot of personality, they bounced off each other, communicating in silent glances and with seemingly telepathic energy. The cast had the BT Studio reverberating with liveliness – not a member of the audience could deny their explosive charm. Blansjaar assessed the mood of each scene and complemented it on his keyboard and bass. He treated the audience to a varied set, from an upbeat piece reflecting the joy of Samuel and Marie as they danced with Cassie (the bear) to a slower, Pink Panther-esque melody when a melodramatic letter was being read aloud. Aided by no props or set, save the instruments played by Blansjaar at the back, and no costume changes, it would have been easy for the small cast to feel vulnerable and exposed on the stage. But if they were nervous, they certainly didn’t show it.

Each actor took on two characters, switching roles from scene to scene. Kitay and Herbert kicked off the show as Samuel and Marie, two almost-adults navigating the trials and tribulations of growing up. Marie is finding it particularly challenging: even at the ripe old age of 19, she is used to having bedtime stories read to her – a nod to the audience member’s dream – but she is determined to make the transition into adulthood. “Do you think we could do something adult? Like go to the post office?” she asks Samuel innocently, to roars of laughter from the audience.

In the next scene, we meet Marie’s mother and grandmother, played by Stone and Kitay. They are discussing the way Marie seems to have changed since she started hanging out with Samuel. Kitay was hilarious as Marie’s grandmother. Only in improvised theatre would we ever see a scene centered around a hunched-over old lady eating (slurping? drinking?) a casserole through a straw, but I loved every second of it. I have to give it to the actors for the witty lines and absurdly creative scenarios they came up with on the spot. For something which could easily have waded into the tedious, superficial, or unoriginal, The Improv Squeeze did a fantastic job of keeping the dialogue from lulling and the story from becoming banal.

Stone and Herbert made a particularly entertaining duo in their roles as the leaders of Grimbleby’s Circus for Adults, a circus specialising in ludicrous animal hybrids and questionable animal welfare. After a vibrant song-and-dance number establishes them as a comedy-classic villain and sidekick pair (think Home Alone’s Harry and Marv), they realise, to their horror, that one of their hybrid bears, one with seven udders no less, has escaped from the circus. So, naturally, they set off on a wild goose chase to bring it back. It is Samuel and Marie who find the bear, dress it in a tutu, and call it Cassie. 

Kitay and Herbert manage to make even their interactions with a 6-foot bear, invisible to the audience, endearing. For Marie, the whole affair is pivotal in her trajectory as a growing woman. She confesses to Samuel how she feels that they have become like Cassie’s parents; the experience has brought them closer together as friends. At this point I wondered how a musical about a rampaging hybrid bear had turned into a moving coming-of-age story about friendship and growing up.

At points I almost forgot that it was being improvised, entranced as I was by the actors’ skill at switching effortlessly from character to character and keeping the storyline flowing throughout. Occasionally the cast would surrender to barely-suppressed giggles, but this only heightened the comedy of the situation. When Kitay entered a scene bearing a letter, Stone and Herbert, as the circus leaders, smoothly deflected having to improvise reading it aloud by stating that they were missing their shared pair of reading glasses. Somehow, given the 94 — yes, 94 — years of ‘close partnership’ that bound the two together, even this explanation was convincing enough.

The overall mood of the evening was one of exuberance. I’m curious to know what the performances on the other nights entailed, but I have no doubts that whatever they served up was as uninhibitedly comical and light-hearted as what we were lucky enough to witness.

Image credit: Lizzy Nightingale

Oli Hall’s Oxford United Updates – W10

Oliver Hall
-
0
Oli Hall’s Oxford United Updates – W10

Weekly Round-Up

It was all slightly calmer for Oxford United this week with the women’s team and the under-21s taking a week off from competitive games.  There was no lack of drama though as the senior men’s fixture ended in typically chaotic fashion at the Kassam.

Friday saw a positive start to the weekend with midfielder Mark Sykes earning his first call-up to the Republic of Ireland squad.  He will be a part of the team that is set to face Belgium and Lithuania next week.  The midfielder becomes the third Oxford player to earn a call-up this international break and as a result, the Yellows have had their game against Morecambe on the 26th March rearranged.

Saturday started with Merit League action for the Under-18s.  They played host to Gillingham in a closely fought affair that ended 0-0.  Both sides played a number of trialists and the defences dominated in a game of few clear-cut opportunities.

The senior men rescued a point late on at the Kassam against Ipswich later in the day in a 1-1 draw.  Bersant Celina had given the visitors the lead with 20 minutes to go but Luke McNally headed home in the fifth minute of added time for a well-deserved draw.

The men now sit fifth in League One, two points behind Plymouth Argyle above them.  With their match against Morecambe postponed, their next game will see them travel to Plymouth on 2nd April.

Match Report: Oxford United 1-1 Ipswich Town

Oxford United dramatically salvaged a late draw at the Kassam on Saturday as Luke McNally headed home in the 95th minute against promotion rivals Ipswich.

The game saw the biggest home attendance of the season so far for the Us with 11 029 fans in fine voice before kick-off and during the game.  

Ipswich were unbeaten in nine going into the game and showed their defensive steel throughout a tight first-half.  Gavin Whyte looked the most likely to break the deadlock early on, forcing two saves from Walton in the Ipswich net inside the first ten minutes.  

Wes Burns peppered the Oxford box with crosses and appeared Town’s best hope of goal in that first period but the Yellow’s defence stood strong and the sides went into the break level at 0-0.

The game opened up around the hour mark and it was the visitors who began to dominate, forcing saves from Eastwood in the 65th minute and keeping up that pressure until they got the breakthrough.

With twenty minutes left to play Burns used his skill to work some space and play the ball into Kosovan international Bersant Celina.  He never looked like missing from inside ten yards and the away fans were delighted with his tidy finish.

United then began to pile forward and their abundance of attacking quality finally bore fruit deep into added time.  In the 95th minute, the home side earnt a corner and piled everyone, including goalkeeper Eastwood, into the Ipswich box.  Herbie Kane’s delivery was sumptuous and McNally met it emphatically to head home and rescue a point for the home team on a day when they weren’t at their best.

Image: Steve Daniels

“Not your best Judy”: The gay man’s misogyny

Fionn McFadden
-
0
“Not your best Judy”: The gay man’s misogyny

CW: homophobia, misogyny, racism, sexual violence

Gay men are not immune from contributing to the misogyny women face. In fact, they are often the worst offenders. This must change.

George and Jules. Stanford and Carrie. Damian and Janis.

The “gay best friend”.

A double–edged sword: both a timeless Western film trope, and a stereotype entrenched in the near-universal experiences of gay men. Whilst the former is, at best, a cheesy plot driver, the latter can extend a lifeline for young gay men in heteronormative environments like high schools and workplaces, many of whom still tremble behind airtight closet doors. A chance to play a role that will finally be met with acceptance, albeit contingent on an accepted notion of how a gay man should behave – one often laced with homophobic stereotypes. Nonetheless, the trope as both a cultural phenomenon and a lived experience has produced the same result: the widespread societal conception that a sense of solidarity exists between gay men and (mainly cisgender, straight/bisexual) women. Through the fact that we both face oppression of varying degrees and types from straight men, we are thought to share parts of the same struggle. Consequently, by banding together, we can alleviate each other of the damaging consequences of homophobia and misogyny.

This solidarity is evident through so many of our cultural practices: diva-worship, for example, which Daniel Harris[1] attributes to the “almost universal experience of homosexual ostracism and insecurity”. Gay men see ‘divas’ like Judy Garland, Diana Ross, and Lady Gaga as wielding the power to overcome the oppression of straight men, and attempt to attain some measure of this same power through idolisation. On the flip side, we can return to the aforementioned cinematic representation of the “gay best friend”, who, as Christine Linnell writes, is often stereotyped as a “wise oracle” of “love and romance”, supporting the female protagonist in overcoming her issues with men, only to fade into the background with little more personal or emotional development.

At this point, it is important to admit that I would be lying if I sat here and wrote that I do not engage in, nor benefit from, this phenomenon of solidarity, as a gay, masculine-presenting person. For example, as I am typing away, iced oat-milk mocha in hand, Ariana Grande’s “Into You” is blasting through my earphones: a well-known queer anthem from a woman worshiped amongst gay men for the reasons outlined above. The majority of my close friends are women, from whom I find a sense of comfort, safety, and to an extent solidarity, and with whom I am able to indulge in conversations about sex, romance, and fashion, free from the judgement I fear I would get from a straight man.

And of course, there is nothing wrong with ‘stanning’ Madonna or proudly proclaiming to your close female friend that ‘all men are trash’. In fact, I would encourage both. However, where the problem begins is that this perceived solidarity is taken beyond just that. Homophobia and misogyny are equally as appalling forms of hatred, both which entail ostracisation, violence, and entrenched discrimination. Nonetheless, they are distinct forms of hatred which operate and affect their intended targets in completely different ways. Whilst the sense of solidarity between gay men and women does provide comfort, it does not mean in any way that gay men can relate to the unique struggles women face under misogyny (and, evidently, vice versa).

Having had this conversation recently with close friends, it got me thinking not only about my own behaviour as someone who is both gay and masculine-presenting, but also about a frequently overlooked fact. This is that, unfortunately, the limits of this solidarity are something which many (mainly white, cisgender) gay men fail to recognise, and which has partially contributed towards misogyny becoming entrenched deep within the cisgender, gay male community. Cisgender gay men are in no way immune, merely on the basis of their sexuality, from perpetuating the misogynistic power structures and behaviours that oppress women. Cisgender gay men, clearly, still benefit from patriarchy, and do not have to contend with discrimination based on both women’s biological sex, and gender identity, as Tim Murphy notes:

 “Gay men, you don’t make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. You don’t have to worry, based on the state where you live, about losing access to birth control or abortion. You (generally) don’t worry about your biological clock ticking, or have to make complicated choices about how to balance childbearing and work, as many women do.”

Nonetheless, the myth that “the oppressed cannot oppress” still stands strong in many gay male circles, and in fact somewhat turbocharges misogyny amongst gay men, as they believe that their lack of sexual attraction to women, alongside the notion that they share the same struggles, means that they are exempt from misogynistic behaviour and rhetoric, as noted by Sadie Hale and Tomás Ojeda[2]. What is even more unfortunate is that this perceived immunity means that the examples of engrained misogynistic behaviour from gay men are countless. 

Let’s start with the basics, taking as our starting point the term “fag hag”- an epithet used frequently by gay men towards (largely cisgender, straight/bisexual) women who are perceived to spend much of their time with gay men, with the connotation that such an alliance is demonstrative or strategic. The woman is accused of making these friendships purely on the basis that the man is gay, and in doing so, she reinforces many negative stereotypes about gay men, such as that they exist purely as a woman’s sidekick.

Whilst (largely cisgender, straight/bisexual) women of course can and sometimes do partake in homophobic behaviour through the reduction of gay men to a mere effeminate accessory, this term is in fact a prime example of gay male misogyny. Instead of being met with constructive criticism, forcing the woman in question to hold herself accountable for her engagement in homophobic behaviour,  she is instead brandished as a “hag” – a long-standing misogynistic trope which mocks her purely on the basis of her existence as a woman, implying that through this behaviour she is physically unattractive and undesirable. Here, the gay man actively engages in the well-established misogynistic action of reducing a woman’s value merely to her desirability through a male lens. 

Insulting or demonising women’s appearances is evident in another form of distinctly gay male misogyny entrenched in the origins of British drag. The art form has changed a lot, represented nowadays by performers like Bimini Bon Boulash who emphasise the gender fluidity and celebration of femininity inherent to drag, but it cannot be denied that, beyond the end-of-pier and bit-of-rouge pantomime influences, the extremes of the “panto-dame” stereotype, which in some scenes continues to underpin the practice of drag in Britain, are laced with misogynistic tropes that insult and exaggerate distinctly female characteristics. Drag, whilst rightly a joyous and celebrated art form, is nonetheless riddled with problems of misogyny, most notably and alarmingly represented through the criticism of (and until very recently,  discrimination preventing) the inclusion of AFAB (assigned female at birth) and transgender women queens in drag shows such as RuPaul’s Drag Race, which originated largely from cisgender gay men, including RuPaul himself. 

Misogyny from gay men runs even deeper and in even more overtly damaging forms. As already stated, a key source of misogyny from gay men stems from their lack of sexual attraction to women, creating a feeling of immunity from one of the key tenets of patriarchal oppression: sexual violence. A pervasive issue, and an almost universal experience for women, sexual violence takes many forms: sexualisation, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and others besides. And gay men, as well as straight men, perpetrate them all.

Many of the examples of this behaviour I can think of take place right here at the University of Oxford, the political and social queer circles of which are notoriously dominated by racism, transphobia, and misogyny, and catered towards the elitist comforts of the rich, white, cisgender gay man. I have witnessed gay men non-consensually ripping into their female friends’ appearances and sex lives, seemingly for their own entertainment, and then getting aggravated when their friends don’t understand that it is “just a joke”. I have heard gay men make sexually-charged jibes at their female friends, insulting or degrading their features in a manner which when done by a straight man is called out with the fire of a thousand suns as misogynistic sexual harassment. I have heard too many stories from female friends of gay men (some of whom occupy high-up positions in political societies) who have subjected them to inappropriate and non-consensual touching. Upon confrontation, the gay man has laughed off the incident in a way which implies that it does not matter, since they are “just one of the girls”, blatantly ignoring the fundamental fact that sexual violence centres on power dynamics, not sexual attraction. Instances such as this are well documented, but the overall phenomenon remains unrecognised as gay men are afforded a conceptual immunity against partaking in sexual violence against women. This must end, and those who continue to believe such behaviour is acceptable must be held accountable.

The LGBTQIA+ community is and has always been riddled with myriads of forms of discrimination and oppression: notably, as aforementioned, racism, transphobia, and misogyny. Two of these intersect in misogynoir, a term coined by Moira Bailey in her seminal 2010 essay ‘They ain’t talking about me…,’ which describes “where racism and sexism meet, an understanding of anti-black misogyny.” It follows that within the LGBTQIA+ community, misogynoir inevitably stems from the dominance of white, gay, cisgender men. Examples of racism from white gay men are well known, including through racist dating preferences on Grindr. However, the more specific form of oppression represented by misogynoir originates from the intersection of the racism, and sexism, so present amongst white gay men.

This can currently be seen through the ongoing debate on social media platform TikTok regarding the behaviour of Ashton Baez (username @baezashton), a cisgender, white, gay male ‘influencer’ who has been accused of appropriating the vernacular, mannerisms, and distinct style most often attributed to Black women, posting videos in which he puts on a “blaccent” and dances nonchalantly to “I Get Out”, a 2002 song by American singer Lauryn Hill explicitly detailing her struggles as a Black woman. As Mark Williams (username @milliamss) put it, Baez’s behaviour is an example of how white, cisgender gay men appropriate Black femininity “as a means of rebellion and liberation”, and in doing so, as noted by Maxtyn Kamryn (username @alienstbh000), build platforms “off of mimicking people of colour”, in particular Black women.

Gay male misogynoir is also evident in the drag community. Anyone who has seen Drag Race, in particular the American seasons, will know that white queens and fans (who are often cisgender gay men) frequently use derogatory terms historically aimed at Black women to brand a queen’s drag as cheap, tacky, and undesirable. Season 8’s Derrick Barry’s repeated branding of winner Bob the Drag Queen’s style as ‘ratchet’ serves as the archetype of this gay male misogynoir. This ingrained misogynoir is also something I have witnessed here at Oxford: last term, I was conversing with a fellow white gay male student about my upcoming trip to London, and my uncertainty about attending the nightclub Heaven given the venue’s reputation for turning away queer women of colour.

“I mean, there’s a reason they do that” he responded, without hesitation.

He struggled to tell me exactly what this reason was, but I can guess with strong confidence that it was rooted in misogynoir. This type of behaviour further serves as an example of the power dynamics cisgender white gay men uphold, and the way they are actively abused at this intersection of misogyny and racism, often at the expense of fellow members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Traditionally queer spaces, in particular queer bars and clubs, have a huge historical problem with domination by white gay men, resulting in the exclusion of, notably, transgender women of colour, who have so often been at the forefront of the fight for queer liberation, and consequently bore the brunt of the worst consequences. The television series Pose heartbreakingly demonstrates this, in a scene from Season 1 in which the trans women of colour Blanca and Angel are kicked out of a bar run by white gay men, purely because they are trans women of colour. The oft-tweeted mantra that white cisgender ‘twinks’ are the “weak link” of the community indeed holds substantial truth in this regard.

So, is gay male misogyny an extension of the misogyny we so often attribute uniquely to straight men, or is it its own distinct and insidious form? The answer is, it is both. Gay men retain their male privilege under the incumbent patriarchal structures, whilst, as argued by Tim Bergling[3], no-femmes attitudes have dominated and continue to dominate the gay male psyche, ranging from exclusionary dating ads in newspapers during the 1980s, now through to “straight-acting” preferences on hookup apps. Hale and Ojeda draw on Judith Butler’s concept of “melancholy gender”[4] to explain this aversion to the feminine in the gay male community as “a violent response towards queer subjectivities that threaten heterosexualised gender identities”. When combined, these strands of gay male misogyny thus become a powerful, destructive force, masked by an abuse of a tenuous solidarity.

My purpose in writing this article is not some ‘holier-than-thou’ rant. All gay men, myself included, are guilty of upholding these misogynistic power structures, and of engaging in this rhetoric and these behaviours, damaging the lives of the women around us, and feeding into other forms of discrimination like racism and transphobia. Nor is it to say that women are guilt-free of homophobia – I myself have many experiences of being strung along as the gay best friend, or being branded as “ditsy” and unintelligent by women purely on the basis of my sexuality.

My purpose is to highlight the systemic rot at the centre of the (mostly white and cisgender) gay male community, whereby instead of standing strong as allies to women, recognising our male privilege and using it to actively dismantle the patriarchy, we repeatedly fail women through engaging in both established and unique forms of misogynistic behaviour and rhetoric. It is not enough that gay men stand by passively when these forms of misogyny are clearly on display: they must be called out and the men behind them held accountable. Otherwise, we will play into the patriarchal system of oppression that we claim to be so removed from. Just like, as feminists, we must turn away from the white TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) feminism of the likes of J.K. Rowling, we must turn away from male-dominated, Perez Hilton-esque notions of queer liberation that actively seek to exclude or even oppress women.

In Charles Donovan’s suffocatingly reactionary 2017 piece ‘The Dangerous ‘Gay Men are Misogynists’ Movement’, he concludes that “there’s a good article to be written about misogyny among gay men”, dismissing the “ill-researched, flimsy, anecdotal hate pieces” which have laid out the various ways gay men contribute to systemic misogyny. Donovan argues that these “hate pieces” are highly dangerous, as they hark back to the days of classing gay men as ill, riddled with the sickness of misogyny, attributed to them on the basis of their sexuality and the heteronormative oppression they face. Well, in rising to Donovan’s challenge to be the first “good article” on male misogyny, I will conclude with an attack on his central thesis (if one can call it that). It is not an oppressive, heteronormative expectation to hold a gay man to the same standards as a straight man concerning their behaviour towards women. By seeking to dismantle the patriarchy and treat women with respect and equality, you’re not a “pick-me gay” kneeling to the demands of heterosexuality. You’re simply not a misogynist. I know which one I’d rather be.

Image Credit: May H. Pham/CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

[1] D. Harris, The Rise and Fall of Gay Culture (1997)

[2] S. E. Hale and T. Ojeda, ‘Acceptable Femininity? Gay Male Misogyny and the Policing of Queer Femininities’ (2018)

[3] T. Bergling , Sissyphobia: Gay Men and Effeminate Behaviour (2001)

[4] J. Butler, ‘Mourning and Melancholia’ (1997) 

Layla Moran MP: Oxford University students key to repealing Vagrancy Act

Layla Moran MP
-
0
Layla Moran MP: Oxford University students key to repealing Vagrancy Act

 It’s not every day you get to say you changed the law, especially as a member of an opposition party.

However, following many years of persistent campaigning, I am elated that the Vagrancy Act is on the brink of being repealed. This comes just over four years and one month to the day when I first brought it to the attention of the then Prime Minister. The Government bowed to cross-party pressure and tabled an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 in full. This archaic and cruel law will finally be consigned to history, and no one in England or Wales will be criminalised for sleeping rough again.

This campaign has been long and hard-fought. It is a testament to the hard work and persistence of my team, our third sector partners, cross-party colleagues, and of course, the students who first raised the issue with me.  

It was a group of Oxford University students who first brought me a petition in 2018 to end the criminalisation of rough sleeping. They were concerned at the manner in which homeless people were being treated by police, and the national approach to homelessness which seemed to favour pushing the problem away. I shared their outrage and agreed to take the petition on.

Achieving this milestone has involved the utilisation of a vast range of parliamentary tools. I have pushed for Government commitment through Prime Ministers Questions and endless questions to Ministers. I secured both an Adjournment and a Westminster Hall debate. There have been countless letters written.  Most recently, I worked with my colleagues in the House of Lords to table an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. All options were considered. 

This campaign from the beginning was about citizens creating change. More importantly, students create change- the same students who are all too often overlooked by the Government when they want to make their voices heard. This to me is what democracy is all about and we need more examples of successful student politics like this in Parliament.  

I was touched to receive an email from one of these students not long after the announcement. She couldn’t believe that a petition she worked on had now changed the law. Another wrote to me recollecting how they became invested in this campaign when they were in their third year of university, they had been kicked out of the clubs and they had talked to the homeless people on the streets of Oxford. They had asked them what scared them, and the homeless people told them about the Vagrancy Act.

Every single day that this legislation remained on the statute books, vulnerable people sleeping rough were still living under the spectre of criminalisation. Rough sleepers should be treated as individual human beings, not an irritant that needs to be pushed out of sight and out of mind.

In this campaign, we have shown that we have moved on from the time of Dickens, that we understand that if someone is sleeping on our streets, that is our collective failure, not theirs. And that they are not criminals. They are a person who deserves compassion, understanding, and a house would help too. 

I hope the success of the campaign against the Vagrancy Act gives hope to students everywhere that they really can make a difference. I would urge them, even if they aren’t a constituent of mine, to write to their local MP about the issues that matter to them because you never know how you may be able to help.

Image Credit: UK Parliament/ CC BY 3.0– image partly cropped to fit to image frame

The perils of historical comparison and the dangerous origins of Putin’s ideology

Antonio Pattori
-
0
The perils of historical comparison and the dangerous origins of Putin’s ideology

The distortion of historical memory for political gain by dictatorial regimes is not a radical innovation. Nations have been built and destroyed over twisted notions of historical events; from the German Dolchstoss myth to the fascistisation of Roman history by Mussolini’s regime, history will always be used as a political tool. Putin’s distortion of history as a justification for the invasion of Ukraine is merely the most recent iteration of this phenomenon. In his televised speech prior to the invasion, Putin denied the historical foundations of Ukraine, arguing that ‘Ukraine actually never had stable traditions of real statehood’. His lexicon deliberately manipulated history with the intention of denying Ukrainian sovereignty and accuse the largest captive area in European history of being in the grip of belligerent nazis. Unfortunately, these are not new claims, and have been tolerated by many intellectuals in the West. While demonstrably false, Putin’s accusations conceal ideological roots which do not originate with himself and require more careful analysis. Historical comparisons tend to be much more rhetorical than historically illuminating, and recent comparisons with the Second World War are equally misleading. 

The parallels employed, focusing primarily on the Czechoslovak crisis in 1938, are limiting and do not fully shed light on both the reasoning and response to Putin’s barbarous invasion of Ukraine. For that, the historian must look further. At face value, comparisons with Hitler’s Germany are valid. The charade of Putin’s meeting with the Russian Security Council was theatrical, and comparing Putin to a paranoid Hitler confronting his ministers would almost seem natural. Putin’s dressing down of advisors who seemed reluctant to support war in Ukraine holds the same megalomaniacal traits of Hitler’s dismissal of ministers, from General von Blomberg to Reichsminister von Neurath, after hesitance in supporting war preparations. Comparing the current crisis with 1938 is, however, superficial and misleading. Putin’s takeover of Crimea and de facto separation of the Donbass in 2014 may hold parallels with how the Munich Agreement of September 1938 separated the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. In both cases, the annexation of parts of the country was followed by full invasion, with the exception that German troops reached Prague within six months. Instead, war in Donetsk and Luhansk has been waged for eight years. The decision not to defend Czechoslovakia, nonetheless, signalled a clear betrayal to obligations which numerous powers had towards Czechoslovakia’s regards, particularly the 1925 and 1935 treaties which respectively bound France and the Soviet Union to defend Czechoslovak territorial integrity.  This element of betrayal and obligation is lacking in Ukraine, and leaves NATO in a paralysed state as we are forced to watch the dismemberment of Ukraine without any action. 

While there is little appetite for war in Europe, the situation is very different from Britain and France’s decision not to interfere in ‘a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing’, as Chamberlain put it at the time. The lack of binding treaties between Ukraine and NATO leaves us without a viable option, with Ukraine being abandoned to a desperate fight against all odds. It is undeniable, however, that many in the West continue to apologetically side with the Kremlin’s amateur historical reasoning. 

Until recently, tabloids referred to the country as The Ukraine, underlining a continued misleading view that Ukraine was no more than a geographical expression. The 2021 essay Ukraine: Tragedy of a divided nation, by Jack F. Mallock, former US Ambassador to the USSR, reflects the persistence of these views. Mallock argued that ‘the fact is, Ukraine is a state but not yet a nation’, and that divisions clearly ran ‘along linguistic and cultural divides’. Mallock’s words mimic those uttered by Putin in his speech: ‘Ukraine is an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space’. Mallock is just one of many intellectuals who have given an apologetic voice of approval to the denial of Ukrainian national sovereignty. 

For this reason, the case study of Germany’s Anschluss with Austria perhaps presents us with a more apt comparison. Austria had no defensive treaties with other powers, and was erroneously seen as an integral part of Großdeutschland – Greater Germany. Few contemplated succouring Austria. Worryingly, many actually tolerated the move as Germany’s expanding in its natural sphere, while Chamberlain reminded the House of Commons that ‘nothing could have arrested what has actually happened’. To make matters worse, the failure of Europe’s energy policy has left many countries to rely on Putin, mellowing reactions even further. These assumptions ought to be dispelled. While divisions do indeed exist, Ukraine has a rich history. Ukraine was at the centre of the medieval Kyivan Rus, and Voltaire wrote about the Ukrainian longing for freedom. Divisions are also much less prevalent amongst the new generation of post-Soviet Ukranians. While the 1991 Independence referendum saw large minorities opposing independence in the East, based primarily along linguistic and cultural lines – Crimea voted 42% against independence, while opposition to independence in Donetsk and Luhansk rested at 12% and 13% respectively – the situation has now massively shifted. The post 1992 generation, born outside of the Soviet sphere, has embraced Ukrainian statehood. Volodymyr Zelensky’s landslide majorities in virtually all oblasts in the 2019 election is a testament to this reality. 

History and the decline of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union can teach us about Putin’s ideological aspirations. His intellectual origins lie in a reactionary attempt to roll back the end of Russian Imperialism. It is not coincidental that Putin has a bust of Peter the Great – who first conquered parts of Ukraine for Russia – in his office. The tsarist undertones are most evident. Most politicians tend to be in the grip of some defunct thinker. Instead, Putin’s philosopher, Alexander Dugin, is alive and still wields influence. Dugin proposes theories of Eurasianism and National Bolshevism, and, importantly, was an advisor to Sergey Naryshkin, a member of Putin’s party, current director of the Foreign Intelligence Service and President of the Russian Historical Society. To understand Putin’s actions requires an understanding of Dugin’s most famous work, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (1997), which outlined the case for a new Russian Tsarist Eurasian Empire. 

According to Professor Timothy D. Synder, Dugin’s influence on Putin is similar to that of Carl Schmitt or Giovanni Gentile on Hitler and Mussolini. His methods for the realisation of a Russian Eurasian empire seem to have been well received by Putin. Dugin supports the ‘staging of an anti-American revolution’ to demolish the ‘universalism’ of Western values. In short, the objective is the changing of the international post-Cold War order. Putin evoked these beliefs in a 2007 speech in Munich, where he argued for the necessity to find a ‘decisive moment’ to move away from an America-led global system. To achieve this, Dugin recommended that Russia ‘support isolationist tendencies in American politics’, and the creation of diplomatic axes with Iran. Putin has followed such a recipe. According to Dugin, friendly relations with Germany are instead key for the dismemberment of NATO in European and Atlantic blocs. 

One only needs to look at Germany’s hesitance in the recent crisis to understand Putin’s attempt to secure this separation: within the German Social Democrats pro-Russian sentiments run rampant, exemplified by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who was recently nominated for a directorship in Gazprom, and is the current chairman of the board of Nord Stream AG and of the Russian state oil company, Rosneft. Tellingly, Schröder blamed ‘the West’ for Putin’s 2008 invasion of the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Dugin’s theories are hence serving as inspiration to Putin and can teach us the reasoning behind the invasion. Dugin sees Ukraine as holding ‘no geopolitical meaning’ but vital for the creation of Moscow as a ‘third Rome’: a theological belief that Russia is the heir of the Roman Empire through its Byzantine roots, fusing imperial and ecclesiological narratives into a combustive Orthodox political theology. Kyiv’s ecclesiastical importance makes it symbolically essential to this misguided conception of history. Putin’s own 2021 five thousand word essay on Ukraine’s history mirrors Dugin’s ultranationalist eurasianism. In the article, Russia’s President wrote that Russia had been ‘robbed’ of its integral lands, citing religious unity as a reason for making the ‘true sovereignty of Ukraine possible only in partnership with Russia’. It is in this tsarist view of history that we may find Putin’s real ideological mission.

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly a partial revanchist response to the loss of Russian influence over Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. Historical parallels with Hitler’s Germany can illustrate how the West has reacted to the ongoing crisis, yet comparisons often present more differences than similarities. Putin is not only reacting to historical change but seeking to roll back developments which have occurred over centuries. Indeed, his speech outlined a rejection of Soviet policy as the alleged creator of Ukraine’s national identity. This view must be seen as the result of an ideological, as much as a geopolitical, programme. To this end, Dugin’s Eurasianist approach to China is instructive: in his 1997 work, he advocated for the demolition of China as a national entity. However, in a 2019 interview with Chinese state media, Dugin recanted his views, arguing that China can be useful for Russia’s attempt to deny Western ‘hegemony in defining universal standards’. Such an anecdote importantly conveys how Putin’s ideological perspective has malleably mutated to fit changing historical contexts with a view to alter the world order. For this reason, historical comparisons can reveal potential outcomes yet no hard facts. 

Debates have been waged over whether Putin’s actions were moved by mental instability, geopolitical calculations, or ideological convictions. The answer is probably a mixture of all of these. Putin alone knows whether he fully ascribes to this Eurasian political theology. What is certain is that, like most regimes before him, he has distorted history itself and mobilised it into action.

Image credits: Premier.gov.ru / CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Oxford victory at 36th Women’s Varsity Football match

Ariana Rubio
-
0
Oxford victory at 36th Women’s Varsity Football match

The Oxford Women’s Blues took on the Tabs in the 36th Women’s Varsity Football match on the 13th of March 2022. The historic Abbey Stadium in Cambridge was swathed in alternate patches of enchanting navy and murky green as OUAFC and CUAFC supporters filled the stands. After a tense 2-2 draw in normal time, the Dark Blues came out on top 4-1 in penalties.

Captain Maddy Kowalenko and new head coach Kaveh Fatemian led the squad of 20 players, which includes Club President Alessandra David and Women’s Vice-President Alice Nichols. Previously restricted by the pandemic, the Blues were able to enjoy their first uninterrupted season in two years. They narrowly missed out on the top position in their BUCS league, made the cup semi-final, and won the Brookes Varsity match 5-0. Victory against Cambridge is the highlight of an impressive season. With this back-to-back Varsity win, which follows a decisive 3-0 triumph in 2021, the team closes the gap between Cambridge’s tally of 20 victories against Oxford’s 13 (now 14). This success is all the more impressive in light of the fact that the Blues played the first half without their coach. Kaveh welcomed his first child, a boy named Arya, the day before the match. In his absence, the team appointed Ellana Slade, a veteran player, to act as head coach on the day. Kaveh then surprised them by showing up at half-time and staying until the end of the match. Double congratulations to him on the birth of his firstborn and the Blues’ win.

The game kicked off at 1:30pm in rainy conditions. Cambridge looked dominant in the first few minutes, with some nice sequences of passing and a shot just wide of the goal. Oxford’s first chance came when Iona Bennett’s cross found Grace Molloy, who hit the cross bar in the 8th minute. Erin Robinson smashed the rebound into the back of the net, but the goal was chalked off for offside. Just five minutes later, David pounced on Molloy’s well-placed pass down the left flank and fired a beautiful strike past the Cambridge goalkeeper from the edge of the box. 1-0 Oxford.

Undaunted by this early setback, the Light Blues pushed into Oxford’s defensive third. In the 20th minute, just after putting a shot over the bar, Cambridge’s Erin Davies tapped in a cool pass from Isobel Boothroyd for the equaliser. The two sides traded attacks for the remainder of the first half, with Cambridge perhaps looking like the more dangerous team. Oxford did well to defend five corners and a couple of shots on goal. After playing well in the first half, goalkeeper Iona Ffrench-Adam injured her finger saving a corner and was replaced by Emmie Halfpenny. Taiye Lawal’s interceptions in the midfield disrupted the Tabs’ momentum, and defenders Roza Bailey, Alice Nichols, Bells Wordsworth and Francisca Vasconcelos proved an impenetrable wall. Ultimately, both defences held firm, and the teams headed into the tunnel for half-time level at 1-1.

Following consistent Cambridge pressure in the first few moments of the second half, Davies broke through the Oxford defence and used her left foot to hammer the ball into the top right corner in the 47th minute. Cambridge settled comfortably into their lead, calmly working the ball in their own half and maintaining possession with ease. There were a nerve-wracking 25 minutes for Oxford fans as they watched the Dark Blues struggle to equalise. Somewhat scrappy play from both sides saw more balls hit over the stands than shots. In the 71st minute, Robinson capitalised on a defensive fumble to skilfully put the ball past the Cambridge goalkeeper, eliciting a roar from the OUAFC stands. Oxford were back in the game. This sensational, much-needed goal was a fitting end to Robinson’s career at OUAFC, during which she oversaw the merging of the Oxford University Men’s and Women’s football clubs and acted as Club President in the 2020-1 season.

Dark Blues Francisca Vasconcelos (left) and Alessandra David (right) in action.
Image credit: Kane Smith

In the last 20 minutes of play, substitutes Sofia Aujla-Jones and Emily Hoyle came on for the Dark Blues. The defences held strong in the face of solid chances on both ends. Oxford goalkeeper Emmie Halfpenny did well to keep her nerve as a Cambridge corner led to a shot just over the bar in extra time. Despite both teams’ best efforts to snag a winner in the dying minutes of the game, the score was 2-2 at full time. The crowd got to their feet and the Oxford team huddled together as they prepared themselves for a penalty shootout.

The Dark Blues and Light Blues stretched out along the halfway line, their arms around their teammates. Stepping up to take the first penalty, Grace Molloy sent the Cambridge keeper the other way as she buried the ball in the top left corner. After a Cambridge goal, Captain Maddy Kowalenko calmly positioned the ball before scoring in the top right corner. Oxford keeper Emmie Halfpenny saved the next penalty. Club Women’s Vice President Alice Nichols placed her penalty in the top left corner, out of the Cambridge keeper’s reach. Halfpenny saved her second penalty to set up Alessandra David for the winner. David, a former Club Women’s Vice-President and the current Club President, has played on the Blues squad for three years. With the final kick of her OUAFC career, David scored in the bottom left corner to win the 36th Women’s Varsity match.

Two dedicated OUAFC fans
Image credit: Ariana Rubio

Oxford fans erupted into applause as the team celebrated together before running to their supporters in the stands. Exhibiting great sportsmanship, the teams applauded each other as they collected their medals and Mandy Wainwright of CUAFC presented the trophy to the captain. Overall, the game was incredibly even; both sides played impressive football and should be proud of themselves. It is no doubt disappointing for the Cambridge team to concede defeat on penalties. Ultimately, however, the Tabs failed to turn possession into convincing chances. Halfpenny’s heroics in goal and the fantastic Oxford penalties also merit credit for the victory. At the end of the day, Oxford handled the penalty shootout, which took place under the watchful eyes of the 2,000 strong crowd, with more composure than Cambridge. The Dark Blues thoroughly deserve the Varsity trophy, which is the crowning achievement of the 2021-2 season.

The captain Maddy Kowalenko is eager to remember Charlotte Maple and Olivia Walk, who made the squad of 16 but did not play, and the rest of the team: Ellana Slade, Amelia Levitt-Smith, Daisy Connolly, and Jessica Cullen. The consistent effort and commitment of the entire squad throughout the whole season put the Varsity squad in an ideal position and contributed to the win. Oxford University is very proud of the Blues and their victory at the 36th Women’s Varsity football match. 

Image Credit: Kane Smith

Magdalen President wins case against same sex couples’ right to marry

Estelle Atkinson
-
0
Magdalen President wins case against same sex couples’ right to marry

The Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society and the African Caribbean Society have released a joint statement expressing a “deep sadness” about the recent Privy Council judgement in favour of the Cayman Island Government and against same sex couples’ right to marry. The letter condemns Dinah Rose’s, the President of Magdalen College, success in representing the Cayman Islands in the Privy Council case. 

The case was held on the issue of same sex marriage in both the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. In the Cayman Islands’ case, the ruling was unanimous, deciding that the matter was one of choice for the legislative assembly, rather than a right granted by the Caymanian Constitution. 

The joint statement expressed that the outcome of the case “denies LGBTQ+ Caymanians, who are also British citizens, full equality, their human dignity, and continues to uphold the segregation of LGBTQ+ people in the region.”

“It also regrettably reconfirms the lack of LGTQ+ rights in British Overseas Territories and the disinterest of the UK Government in promoting equality for all British citizens,” they added. 

The Cayman Islands Government was successfully represented by barrister Dinah Rose QC, who said the Constitution is “crystal clear,” and there is no right to marry for gay couples. 

In the statement released, the OULGBTQ+ Society reiterated its stance that “it is an unacceptable conflict of interest for serving College Heads to be involved in homophobic litigation, seeking to entrench inequality and segregation of LGBTQ+ British citizens in a British Overseas Territory.”

The statement references Magdalen’s Equality Policy, which provides that College staff must have “due regard to removing or minimising advantages suffered by people due to protected characteristics found in the Equality Act 2010, which includes sexual orientation.” 

The two societies wrote that “irrespective of Ms DInah Rose’s private views on LGBTQ+ rights, her role as counsel for the Cayman Government entailed a duty to fight for her client’s best, homophobic, interests to the best of her ability, running counter to her LGBTQ+ and ethnic minority students’ best interests, the College’s Equality Policy, and the general reputational interests and pastoral duties of any Oxford College Head.”

Rose has previously faced criticism amongst the student body surrounding a perceived conflict of interest between her duties as President of Magdalen College and as a professional barrister.

When faced with such criticisms, Rose cited her being bound by the cab rank rule. The cab rank rule applies to a number of courts, including the Privy Council, which obliges a barrister to accept an instruction to appear in a court sitting in England in an area of expertise pertaining to the barrister, and issued when the barrister is available to act. 

Rose has said that if she were to succumb to pressure to cease to act on the case, she would be committing an act of “serious professional misconduct.” 

On the topic of the cab rank rule, the joint statement expressed: “We are not asking for lawyers to be identified with the clients they represent. We merely ask that serving College Heads do not engage in activities which adversely impact marginalised minority groups. At times, acting for a client as legal counsel will entail exactly that.”

“Specifically, regardless of its legal nature, the cab rank rule should not serve as the litmus test as to whether College Head duties were complied with, and a conflict of interest exists. The starting point for this question is, and must be, the equality policy and other Governance rules of a respective college.”

The outgoing President of the OULGBTQ+ Society, Clay Nash, said that Rose never publicly disagreed with the precise matter of the case and her client’s aims, calling this lack of public statement “not surprising given her duty to act in the client’s best interests.” Nash shared that the main opportunity that student’s received to inquire about the matter was a “confidential, closed-off meeting which [Rose] explicitly warned students was strictly confidential.” 

The OULGBTQ+ Society attempted twice to discover through Freedom of Information requests whether or not Rose had disclosed the nature and content matter of the case to Magdalen in advance of her assumption of her position of President, including who she was representing, and whether or not the Magdalen LGBTQ+ Officers were able to review this information when considering her for the position. Having not received the relevant information, Nash commented that “this matter of accountability, and whether the Magdalen Governing Board failed its due diligence in the selection process, remain unknown.”

On this issue, Nash told Cherwell: “This situation has highlighted a major and dangerous omission in College and University policy that leaves marginalised students within Oxford vulnerable. There should be no opportunity for the external work of College Heads to conflict with their pre-eminent role and their pastoral duties. I have no doubt that if formal policy on this matter is not introduced, another situation similar to this will arise in the future and it will once again be the most marginalised that are the worst affected.” Nash proposed a series of policy recommendations to the Conference of Colleges and the University in order to address this. So far, none of the policy recommandations have been implemented.

The joint letter also highlighted that “one cannot ignore the racial dynamics at play here as Caribbean students have historically faced prejudice and discrimination at the hands of Britain and the University. Ms Rose’s involvement is a continuation of that legacy.”

Savannah Stanislaus, the Senior Welfare Officer and LGBTQ+ Representative of the African Caribbean Society, told Cherwell: “I am beyond disappointed by the outcome  regarding the Cayman Islands same-sex marriage case and I expect that many share this feeling of despair with me. Since it was announced last year that the President of Magdalen College, Ms Dinah Rose, would be representing the Caymanian Government in this case, there has been an outpour of support from fellow students for the LGBTQ+ community within Oxford as well as for the couple in question.”

“However, the Caribbean community and by extension the black community within Oxford have not been given this same support, as there has been little attention to the colonial and racial elements of this case. Ms Dinah Rose has not only failed the LGBT+ community in and outside of Oxford but she has also exercised her systemic privilege in this case and has directly contributed to the on-going legacy of white supremacy and colonialism. Ms Dinah Rose has sent the message loud and clear that Caribbean students and those who are Caribbean and LGBTQ+ that our lives and wellbeing are insignificant to her. She has contributed to an already dangerous culture of discrimination and bigotry for Caribbean and LGBTQ+ students. I ask that you don’t allows us Caribbean and Caribbean LGBT+ students to be drowned out by the voices of those less affected by this. We matter.”

The societies extended their “heartfelt sympathies” to Chantelle and Vickie, the couple who brought the case and subsequently appealed it, and whose “enormous efforts over multiple years had sought to vindicate LGBTQ+ rights in the Cayman Islands.” 

The University of Oxford, Magdalen College, and Dinah Rose were approached for comment. 

Image Credit: Diliff / CC BY-SA 3.0

Oli Hall’s Oxford United Updates – W9

Oliver Hall
-
0
Oli Hall’s Oxford United Updates – W9

Weekly Round-Up

It was a mixed set of results this week for Oxford United as the women’s side took an uncharacteristic stumble in their promotion push.  The men and the U18s more than made up for it though with more late drama keeping the Us in League One playoff contention.

Wednesday night saw the club’s first action of the week with the women hosting Southampton at Court Place Farm in front of a record crowd of 505.  The Saints looked on track to spoil the party after taking the lead inside seven minutes through Alisha Ware.  The Yellows began to come into the game more though and the equaliser on the brink of half-time proved enough to earn them a well-earned point.

Chris Hackett’s U18s kicked off the weekend’s action with their first win of the season in the Merit League.  Playing away to Portsmouth, the youngsters played out a tight encounter and got the breakthrough when Josh Johnson finished off an Elijah Coe ball in.  The Us then defended well and saw out a good result against a high-achieving Pompey side.

The senior men were up next in the three o’clock kick-off and yet again they brought the drama.  United travelled to Shrewsbury and took a deserved lead through Matty Taylor after eleven minutes.  They failed to make the most of their other chances though and Ryan Bowman got the crowd going again with an equaliser on the hour mark.  Cameron Brannagan had other ideas though and converted from the spot with eight minutes left to play to seal all three points.

Sunday saw the women’s long unbeaten streak ended at MK Dons in a big dent to their title challenge.  They missed chances in the first half that they would have taken on another day and the home side made them pay just before the hour mark.  The Us came back into the game after that but couldn’t find an equaliser, meaning the game went on to finish 1-0.

The week ended with the news of Northern Ireland call-ups for both Gavin Whyte and Ciaron Brown, a fine reflection of their form so far this season.

So, as the week comes to an end the men are sitting fourth in League One with a two-point gap to Sunderland below them.  The women are now four points off title rivals Ipswich after dropping points twice in the same week for the first time this season.

Match Report:  Shrewsbury Town 1-2 Oxford United

Oxford United made a big statement as they got back to winning ways with victory away to Shrewsbury Town on Saturday.  

The day had started badly for Oxford fans with the news that Jack Stevens, Sam Long and Ciaron Brown were all ruled out with illness.  They only added to the injury woes of inform Sam Baldock to leave the visitors in a situation that most sides would struggle to deal with.  It also meant that John Mousinho took the captain’s armband as he played for the first time in the league since 2020.

The home team started the game brightest: full of energy and attacking prowess they forced early blocks from centre-backs Seddon and Mousinho.  It wasn’t long before Oxford started to show their class though and on the eleven-minute mark, Herbie Kane’s pass found Gavin Whyte, who forced a save from Marosi in the home net.  The rebound fell kindly for Matty Taylor and Oxford’s top scorer smashed home to give the Us the lead.

The Shrews refused to go away and tested throughout the first half.  In spite of that, Oxford stood stayed resolute and were good value for their lead at half-time.

That finally changed with an hour gone:  Ryan Bowman got into a great position inside the United six-yard box and finished off a superb delivery from winger Elliot Bennett for the Shrewsbury equaliser.

After that, it was anyone’s game but it was Oxford who showed the desire and forced the issue in the final ten minutes yet again.  Ryan Williams sprinted the length of the pitch and went down under the challenge of Bennett to earn a vital penalty for the visitors.  Cameron Brannagan kept his calm from the spot and converted to win a huge three points for the Yellows, sending the travelling fans into raptures.

The game sees United sure up their play-off position.  They stay fourth, two points above Sunderland in fifth and just five points off MK Dons and Wigan above them.  A tough challenge awaits next Saturday when they welcome Ipswich to the Kassam but United have put themselves in a good place with eight games to go.

Image: Darrell Fisher

‘Heartbreaking and beautiful’ – Review: Brain Freeze

Eva Bailey
-
0
‘Heartbreaking and beautiful’ – Review: Brain Freeze

I was filled with excited anticipation when I braved Storm Eunice to visit the BT Studio last week. I was aware that Debora Krut’s original play Brain Freeze was a semi-autobiographical piece about sex and cancer but, from this description, I didn’t quite know what to expect. However, from the play’s beginning, this immensely talented cast of Oxford students captured my imagination, and I was swept up by the story they had to tell.

Brain Freeze follows a young woman – simply referred to as ‘Patient’ to preserve her anonymity – who is diagnosed with cancer, exploring her subsequent struggle to sexually reconnect with a body that has failed her. The narrative is framed by an oncologist lecturing a group of medical students (the audience), using Patient’s case to teach them about the importance of empathy and the difficulties in delivering heart breaking news day after day.

The opening of the show was ingenious, with Oncologist’s introductory lecture seamlessly weaving in the content warnings and setting the scene for Patient’s story. Michael Freeman was perfect for this role. He was an incredibly believable lecturer – to the point where I was often tempted to raise my hand when he asked for student participation – but he also explored a tender vulnerability to this medical professional, particularly in his conversation scenes with Patient. To switch so rapidly between narrating the story and acting within it can’t have been easy, but Freeman handled this complex character expertly.

Grace de Souza equally shone as Patient. Her range was impressive; I often found myself alternating between tears and laughter within the space of a few lines of dialogue whenever she was on stage. My favourite moment was Patient’s vulnerability before her routine scan, just after she has experienced a mental block when trying to have sex with her boyfriend again for the first time. Her fear was tangible, and de Souza’s portrayal of this intense anxiety was heart-breaking and beautiful in equal measures.

Peter Todd as Boyfriend and Emma Pollock as Best Friend also deserve the highest praise for their performances. Todd’s portrayal of Boyfriend captured the guilt and panic of watching someone you love suffer, and his tender moments with Patient were achingly stunning. The macaroon metaphor used throughout the play served as a symbol of hope and new beginnings, and Boyfriend presenting this to Patient at the end of the play – after Todd’s anguished, silent pacing just moments before – gave me a lump in my throat. As well as this tenderness, Boyfriend had a convincing (and amusing) relationship with Best Friend. Pollock’s performance, as I keep praising in this cast, had incredible range, and her scene with the sex toys was one of the funniest moments of the play. A mention must also be given here to the lighting inside her bag, a very clever way of drawing attention to the intimidating ‘something’ that lay within. Pollock’s frank portrayal was perfect to capture Best Friend’s fierce loyalty, but it worked equally well in her tender moments with Patient, such as agreeing to stay up all night to comfort her friend.

One of the play’s highlights was the scene featuring the three ‘Nosy Bitches’, busybodies who couldn’t help but ask probing and invasive questions when they spotted Patient in a pub. Macy Stasiak, Luke Nixon and Alec Watson were laugh-out-loud funny without becoming caricatures: like the rest of this fantastic play, this scene was perfectly pitched, and didn’t feel exaggerated or slapstick. Stasiak’s interaction with Best Friend was a stand-out moment, and Pollock’s range shone once more in this scene, deftly moving between drunk anger and concerned kindness within minutes.

The BT was the perfect venue for this production, and a mention must also be given to the technical aspects. The simple set was ideal, with actors often manipulating set pieces to create different spaces. The lighting was immaculate, particularly when Patient and Boyfriend were trying to have sex again, switching between warm, intimate tones to cool, stark ones to represent Patient pushing Boyfriend away. Additionally, the repeated MRI sound used throughout seemed to simulate Patient’s building panic, cutting across conversations to represent that Patient was unable to escape her anxiety. My only minor criticism was that the pauses while Patient and Boyfriend were texting one another felt a touch too long, but that was immediately forgotten due to the perfect comedic timing of this stellar cast.

When I opened my notes app once Brain Freeze had finished, I simply typed ‘Debora Krut is a very clever lady’. That couldn’t be more true: alongside a stunning cast and an evidently dedicated production team, Krut has created a show that wouldn’t be out of place in a professional setting like the Edinburgh Fringe. I have no doubt that this won’t be the last we see from Last Minute Productions, and I cannot wait to see what this company does next.

Image: Debora Krut

Elitism and colonialism’s residue: Pakistan’s education system is in crisis

Haniya Basir
-
0
Elitism and colonialism’s residue: Pakistan’s education system is in crisis

Pakistan’s education system has failed the nation’s youth as elitism and remnants of colonialism have intensified inequalities in the new generations. The widespread requirements of English proficiency have distorted the schooling system’s ability to a successfully educate its youth.

Pakistan was described as “among the world’s worst performing countries in education,” at the 2015 Oslo Summit on Education and Development. Whilst some steps have been taken since to improve young people’s prospects, the problem is innate, with the key issue being class divides. Despite having gained independence from Britain 73 years ago, the country’s convoluted relationship with its past continues to hinder progress for working class households. The nation’s affluent class is characterised by their preservation of British customs and the English language, resulting in it being adopted as an official language of Pakistan. This has brought about a society in which intellectualism is equated with English proficiency, whilst fluency in the language has become a prerequisite for many professional jobs.

According to the Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey, conducted by the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics in 2019, 37% of all children attending school are studying at private institutions, where teaching is in English. This number seems mismatched considering the country’s high levels of poverty. However, it is reflective of the growing elitism in Pakistan as well as the desire of working-class parents to equip their children with the language requirements necessary to obtain professional jobs. This has been one of the key causes of the country’s failure to successfully educate its youth as those attending government schools are immediately excluded from skilled job opportunities due to their lack of English fluency. On the other hand, students attending low grade private schools, where many teachers themselves do not have an adequate grasp of the English language, resort to rote learning as they face the challenge of not only learning the curriculum, but also grappling with understanding a foreign language.

The inequalities will continue to worsen with the newest education reform: the introduction of the Single National Curriculum (SNC). On the surface, this appears to be a suitable solution to the disparities in the Pakistani education system. However, the SNC is anything but singular. The elite private schools are exempt and are free to follow their own curriculum, thereby only fortifying existing inequalities, rather than raising standards across the board.

Those that are studying in government schools are faced with separate challenges, most notably a lack of teaching resources and poor infrastructure, as well as high rates of teacher absenteeism. According to UN guidance, Pakistan should spend at least 15 to 20% of the total national budget and 4 to 6% of GDP in education. Yet, in 2017, the government spent just 2.8% of GDP on education, illustrating the state’s abdication of responsibility for the nation’s youth.

The issue of effective education is particularly crucial considering Pakistan has one of the world’s youngest populations. According to the 2019 Human Development Report, the median age in Pakistan is 22.8 and is only expected to increase a mere 8 years by 2050. With 35.1% of the population between the ages of 0 and 14, education standards must be improved or else the youth bulge threatens to hamper economic growth for several decades to come. 

If the young masses can be successfully educated, they have the potential to revitalise Pakistan’s struggling economy and create a prosperous future. However, in the current climate, with elitism continuing to thrive and inequalities intensifying, this seems to be a Herculean task.

Image: Sam Phelps/CC BY-NC 2.0 via Flickr

1...243244245...2,494Page 244 of 2,494

Support Student Journalism

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

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

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

Website by James Ashley