Saturday 6th September 2025
Blog Page 27

University calls for tighter measures to control the rise of AI deep fakes

Georgia Campbell
-
0
University calls for tighter measures to control the rise of AI deep fakes

A new study from the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) has found a sharp rise in the number of AI tools used to generate deep fake images of identifiable people, primarily targeting women. Will Hawkins, the leader of the study titled “Deep fakes on Demand”, suggests that there is an “urgent need” for improved safeguarding to address the creation and distribution of the AI models. 

The research was carried out via a meta-data analysis of thousands of publicly available text-to-image models hosted on two popular platforms, Civitai and Hugging Face. 

According to the findings, deep fake generators have been downloaded more than 15 million times since late 2022, and have led to a rapid increase in AI-generated non-consensual intimate images. Central to the findings was the ease with which these images can now be created. Many deep fake model variants can be generated with as few as 20 images of a target individual, and within 15 minutes of processing time on a standard consumer-grade computer. 

Especially worrying was the fact that these models overwhelmingly target women, which account for 96% of deep fakes analysed. These women range from internationally recognised celebrities to smaller influencers with a relatively minor following. 

But the results, the researchers acknowledge, may only be the “tip of the iceberg”. The study did not take into account those not publicly available on reputable platforms, which may lay host to “more egregious deep fake content”. 

The sharing of sexually explicit deep fake images was made a criminal offence in England and Wales under an amendment to the Online Safety Act in April 2023. The UK Government hopes to also make creating such images an offence as part of its Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently at Committee Stage.

On the potential technical safeguards that could be introduced, Will Hawkins told Cherwell: “Firstly, platforms could decide to monitor and remove model variants which indicate that AI-generated NCII content is intended to be created. For example, models which are tagged with both “Celebrity” and “Porn” labels could be removed.

“To go further, platforms could choose to remove any model variant which targets the generation of an identifiable individual without their explicit consent. Secondly, technical safeguards could include research investment into the impacts of pre-training filtering for pornographic content, or investment in provenance techniques such as watermarking content generated by AI models.”

Sheldonian Series hosts final discussion of academic year

Amelia Gibbins
-
0
Sheldonian Series hosts final discussion of academic year

Oxford University brought its Sheldonian Series to a close for the academic year with a panel discussion on the nature of “truth”, featuring Mitali Mukherjee, Professor Kimberly Johnson, and Fraser Nelson. 

The event was moderated by Richard Ovenden, the University’s Head of Gardens, Libraries, and Museums (GLAM). Ovenden’s 2020 book, Burning the Books: A History of Knowledge Under Attack, explores the destruction of knowledge across history.

Professor Kimberly Johnson, a Visiting Professor of American Government at Oxford, brought a political science angle to the panel. Her research focuses on American and urban political development, as well as race and ethnic politics. She was joined by Mitali Mukherjee, who was named Director of the Reuters Institute last month, having led its Journalist Programmes since September 2022. She is a political economy journalist with experience working in TV, print, and digital journalism. 

The third panellist was editor of The Spectator, Fraser Nelson. Under his editorship, The Spectator’s value increased fivefold, being sold for £100m when he stepped down last year. Nelson is currently a columnist for The Times and has previously presented documentaries for Channel 4.

Discussion ranged from definitions of the truth, to the responsibilities of the media and public institutions. Unsurprisingly, references to the Trump administration and the COVID-19 pandemic loomed large, and all three speakers pointed to these as moments where the concept of truth had come under strain. Mukherjee, however, pointed out that misinformation is far from a new phenomenon, though it may feel existential at this moment in history.

Public engagement with journalism was another central theme. Nelson observed that the reach of traditional print media has somewhat shrunk, no longer ranking among the most widely sought after sources of news. He argued that those still paying for high-quality journalism tend to be wealthier and older, highlighting a divide in how different audiences are able to access reliable information. Mukherjee added that younger people often turn to social media for news, prompting questions about how trust is built on those platforms, and the extent to which news organisations must meet social media users in the middle.

The conversation also turned to the role of universities in shaping or defending truth. Johnson noted that academic institutions often become arenas for conflicting personal truths that are held with equal conviction. Mukherjee echoed this sentiment, recalling a conversation with the Vice-Chancellor about the importance of listening to students and engaging with their interpretations of truth, rather than imposing a single narrative.

The session ended with questions from the audience, with these ranging from whether young people should be more comfortable with formal means of truth seeking, like using the Freedom of Information Act, to the ways in which news outlets should restore public trust in a “post-truth society”.

In her closing remarks, the Vice Chancellor looked forward to Michaelmas, when the Sheldonian Series will continue; she urged the audience to share their ideas for future topics of discussion, and reflected on the success of the Series this academic year.

Kashmir: Radicalising a diaspora

Anonymous
-
0
Kashmir: Radicalising a diaspora

A recent terrorist attack in Pahalgam, a town in the Kashmir Valley, has led to the escalation of hostilities between India and Pakistan. Most international students who live in the region have responded with fear, shock and confusion, calling home to hear about blackouts and air raid warnings. Concerning, however, is the tone of many diaspora students, raised in the West with no lived experience of conflict. It seems to reflect an uncomfortable enthusiasm for an escalation in violence. Fuelled by social media algorithms that report nationalistic framing of events on both sides of the conflict, those who have no memory of the Kargil War now appear to romanticise military conflict. I write this as a British Indian myself, concerned about the ease with which some are prepared to accept government actions that would bring about considerable human suffering.

Oxford’s India and Pakistan Societies are among the University’s largest – serving as a place for students to have a community away from home that keeps them in touch with their culture. The societies also play a political role; they are perceived as representing the collective opinion of Indian and Pakistani students. Whether or not this is fair, it remains the case that any public statement should be carefully worded and avoid deepening divisions. This is a serious responsibility, and one that was handled disappointingly. Pak Soc released a statement calling for “peace, justice and liberation”, while India Soc later responded by cancelling the inter-society cricket match, an understandable choice to avoid a scene at the game, but also condemning “the Pakistani military’s continued support for terrorism as state-policy and disregard for international law”. The latter statement serves only to fuel tension– it is irresponsible for a student society to make such claims, regardless of one’s view of them, in a University with a diverse student body which needs calming, not incitement. This is not to argue that student societies should entirely avoid politics, but instead to ask that those who have influence recognise their responsibilities. This was a missed opportunity to come together and release a joint statement that denounces violence and calls for peace – which would help students feel safe at University at such an emotionally charged time. It is these aims which both societies should work towards, rather than to act as pseudo-embassies of national governments.

Setting societies aside, the wider student response, largely driven by Instagram and TikTok, shows an ignorance of the true nature of war. The US-led misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are not memories for most students, but features of textbooks. The lessons of the past, that war brings devastation, suffering and instability, have been forgotten, and the mistaken conclusions reached by Blair and Bush have re-emerged in mainstream discourse in both Indian and Pakistani national media, which has filtered through to students online.

Those who enthusiastically endorse escalation today are often those who have no memory of past wars, and forget the personal risk they face from a future one. It is their extended family in India and Pakistan who are threatened by a resumption of conflict, and to repost articles calling for “retribution” from the safety and comfort of a foreign country is to emotionally detach from the costs. War, as Tony Benn remarked in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, has become a “news item” or “computer game” for young people, rather than a lived experience.

Social media algorithms, and the decline of quality media coverage in India and Pakistan, threaten to become a vehicle for the quiet radicalisation of the South Asian diaspora in the UK. Many posts that have reached young people on Instagram stem from WhatsApp groups, which are the favoured campaign strategy of India’s ruling party, the Hindu nationalist BJP.

The creation of a feedback loop between WhatsApp propaganda targeting middle-aged parents, and duplications on Instagram and TikTok targeting Gen Z, has the potential to encourage sectarianism not only among students, but among older Indians and Pakistanis in the UK who are told that their children are at risk.

A frequently forwarded WhatsApp poster produced by Insight UK, which calls itself a “social movement of British Hindus and Indians”, includes a claim that “Hindu or Indian students are being targeted or harassed by other students, including those of Pakistani origin”. Meanwhile, political figures like Akhmed Yakoob suggest that the Indian government is engaged in a conspiracy with Israel, arguing that “Zionists want to take away Pakistan’s nuclear weapons”. Yakoob came within 3,421 votes of becoming an MP at the last General Election and, given the Labour government’s dire polling numbers, would be even better placed to win in 2029. Men who spread such views should not be in Parliament, but if young people follow their parents in voting on identitarian lines then many more like him will be elected at the next election.

This is not only an argument that concerns people from the subcontinent, but a broader comment on the normalisation of aggressive political rhetoric at universities. Student societies should not try to emulate the worst instincts of foreign nationalist governments; they have a responsibility to be a positive forum for solidarity and de-escalation. What students say may not affect the conflict abroad, but it will determine whether it is carried in our communities at home.

Review: As You Like It – ‘What’s not to like?’

Sanaya Narula
-
0
Review: As You Like It – ‘What’s not to like?’

At last, the sun is coming out to play, and the Mansfield Players’ staging of As You Like It has given this summer’s outdoor theatre season a merry welcome. The performance is so contagiously high-spirited that, in keeping with this play’s signature ‘All the world’s a stage’ speech, every creature is inclined to participate. A cat attempts to steal the show by strolling mischievously around the musicians, a chorus of birds chimes in with their evensong, and a separate staging of The Princess Bride at the nearby Wadham is happy to contribute its chaotic brawl noises. It is a collaborative affair. 

As the spectators arrive, the cast seems already to be in character. The group bursts into the traditional ‘I love the flowers’ song while EP Siegel, playing the cynical Jaques, pretends to read Nietzsche’s The Joyful Wisdom: an apt allusion, and an amusing way to set the scene. Mansfield’s garden makes for a lovely Forest of Arden, transcending the stuffy indoors and emulating the ceilingless Globe Theatre, where this Shakespeare play is believed to have been first performed to the public. The play is deliberately self-aware; there is something quaint about how the exaggeratedly French Duke Senior (Josephine Bernier) introduces the ‘players’ and declares out loud that they will now begin with Act 1, Scene 1. 

The harmony between the play’s heroines, Rosalind (Elizabeth Hamilton) and Celia (Emily Polhill), is a pleasure to witness – they are synchronised in their laughter and their tears, and both comically faint at various points in the play. Ben Gilchrist plays a convincing youngest brother in his role as Orlando, unrivaled in his ability to conjure up a youthful blush at the sight of his character’s crush. Arthur Bellamy entertains as Touchstone, simultaneously impersonating a pretentious intellectual and Shakespearean fool, and his bright blond hair enlivens an already vibrant costume.

EP Siegel is not just Jaques, but seems to play a second director within the play: this production adds a playful moment to Shakespeare’s original, where Jaques utters a frantic ‘fuck!’ and implores a front-seat spectator to fill in for a seemingly missing actor. Siegel captures the essence of Jaques’ boisterous melancholia and executes an impressive performance of the ‘Seven Ages of Man’ speech, slowly amplifying the tension and spiraling into an explosive existential crisis. This Jaques is a character who makes use of liminal spaces, watching from the aisle, in cahoots with the audience as the action unfolds. The fourth wall wanes, leaving us uncertain: have we been lured into the spectacle, or has the play stepped out into the real world? 

The director (Tom Onslow) double-casts characters masterfully to enhance the comedy: Dami Adedoyin-Adeniyi is both Charles, the fiery wrestler, and Audrey, elegant ‘country wench’. Alex Lauff, clothed in black, plays the malignant character of Duke Frederick, but dons a pink floral shirt to embody William, a ‘country fellow’ who woos Audrey. When Rosalind, Celia and Touchstone traverse perilous obstacles to reach the Forest of Arden, our Duke (Alex Lauff) nobly takes on the role of a tree obstructing their path. 

Phoebe (Rav Sagoo) and Silvius (Isabella Savin) are endearing comedians, and Lauren Mlicko’s whimsical singing is a jovial ornament to the play. Zoë Shah’s leafy costume designs breathe life into this pastoral fairytale. This performance feels no need to drastically renovate Shakespeare’s classic, as many modern adaptations do, but perhaps this is precisely what makes it so timelessly familiar. 

As the night gets colder, the audience snuggles up with fluffy blankets, delighted by this cosy comedy, a comfort from the sorrows of the day. With four couples happily married and a powerful epilogue delivered by Rosalind, the play comes to an end. From this day forth, I vow to be an honest reviewer, to critique unflatteringly if I must – but as it turns out, I do like it.

Moving out and moving on

Ben O'Brien
-
0
Moving out and moving on

The idea that you should never discuss politics at the dinner table has long been a cliché, but over the last few years, it’s become arguably the cliché of our times. Brexit, COVID, Trump, Palestine, you name it – most issues these days are so divisive, it seems impossible to have a normal conversation about them, let alone come to some kind of agreement or, god forbid, to actually change each other’s minds. 

It can seem like anytime someone raises one of these issues, the outcome is more likely to be angry mouth-frothing than anything resembling a respectful discussion. So surely it would be better for all of us, the cliché says, if we just left the contentious stuff behind and concentrated on the things we can agree on. The fact that good weather is better than bad weather, for instance, or that dogs are better than cats. Trump-lover or diehard Corbynite, no matter – if only we would stick to these more clear-cut issues, everybody would be friends. 

By instinct, I’m not a fan of the cliché. Isn’t it infantilising, treating us all like we’re small children, unable to talk about anything even slightly controversial without having a temper tantrum and throwing our toys out the pram? Wouldn’t it be healthier, not to mention less boring, to have all the contentious stuff out in the open? After all, what does it say about our relationships, be it with friends, family, or the always-smiling dog-walker in Port Meadow, that we can only spend time together as long as we leave the things we might disagree on out of sight. It seems less like a recipe for healthy relationships than for repressed feelings and mutual suspicion. Surely we can get along whilst having our views out in the open – and maybe we’d even like and respect each other more because of it, not less.

My relationship with friends back home has put this opinion to the test. Sometimes I feel like studying at Oxford has been a years-long process of developing views that are the polar opposite to those held by the people where I used to live. I don’t think I’m being unfair to anyone when I say I grew up in a Brexit-town, before Brexit was even a thing. A small but once busy seaside tourist destination in south west England, my little town now has more boarded-up pubs and fish and chip shops than open ones. The people there are angry, and you only have to hang around for a few minutes to hear it. Benefit scroungers are stealing taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Immigrant ‘invaders’ are slowly managing to implement Sharia law. Feminists won’t be happy until all men are in prison. The town, like the country, is going down the pan – and somebody has to be responsible. 

For a long time I couldn’t resist the temptation to fight the cliché. When you hear straight-up untruths, it’s hard to bite your tongue. I’d take the opportunity to point out that, say, the striking NHS nurses weren’t all ‘skivers’, or that hundreds of people weren’t now suddenly dying from COVID jabs. Granted, there was a bit of me which did this almost like a reflex, and I was sometimes less sensitive than I could have been: of course the COVID jabs are fine – and you have to be mad to even question it. But for the most part, I thought there was nothing wrong with us having a good old argument, and that maybe if we were all open about these things, some of us might even change our views. It didn’t work. We never properly fell out, but I often wondered if we would.

The trickiest part of all this has been feeling that I myself have turned into exactly the stereotype the people back home are sick of in the first place. And it’s hard to deny that in many ways I have become exactly the ‘woke social justice warrior’ who the Trumpists and others are fighting against: the person who abandons his roots and goes off to uni, home of the woke mind virus and the liberal metropolitan elite, learns a bunch of things about social justice, then returns home from time-to-time to explain to everyone exactly how they have got things so wrong. I’ve turned into one of ‘them’, and so before I’ve even opened my mouth, everything I say has already been discounted. The more ‘calmly and reasonably’ I put my point across, the more condescending I feel they think I’m being. And in a way, they’re not completely wrong.

Therein lies the difficulty. These stereotypes are now so deeply embedded, it means that we don’t take each other seriously anymore, even when there might be a degree of truth in what the other person is saying. As for me and my own friends, we seem to have fallen into an unspoken agreement that things would be much easier if we just leave the controversial stuff off the table. I’ve ended up feeling happy enough with this, because the fact is that it does feel easier to get along with people when we stick to what we do have in common rather than what we don’t. For the moment, it seems to be working. What it says about the strength of our friendships, I’m not so sure. 

C Sunday: The Cambridge art of day drinking

Beatrix Arnold
-
0
C Sunday: The Cambridge art of day drinking

It’s 10:30am. As we trudge down the stairs, loaded with bags, we pass someone carrying a heavy pint glass filled with Guinness. A trolley hurtles across the street conveying a shirtless man, his head wrapped in a large bag. A gaggle of toga-clad students bustle by. On any other day I’d think I was hallucinating.  

Caesarian, or “C” Sunday is a Cambridge tradition which originates from a 20th century annual skirmish between the Jesus College drinking society, the “Caesarians”, and the Girton “Green Monsters”, until its eventual prohibition in 2014. By comparison, its present-day iteration is a lot more tame, but nonetheless promises unique sights, as hundreds of Cambridge students gather on Jesus Green on the Sunday of May Week for picnics, initiations, and, above all, day-drinking.  

When we reached the Green just before midday, groups of students were beginning to pour in, the crowd splattered with a palette of fancy-dress. The drinking societies were unmistakable; each came clad in their own uniquely insane attire, to complete their own uniquely insane initiation rituals. My friend points out the ‘Alleycatz’, the all-women’s drinking society at St Catharine’s, dressed in neon orange jumpsuits and chugging from shoes. The epicentre of the crowd buzzes with activity; for those not participating in drinking societies, it’s preferable to pitch your spot on the outskirts. Narrowly avoiding the flight path of a series of men racing on all fours, dressed head to toe in pink, we claim our position, and enjoy what my friend dubs “a picnic with a view”.  

As most Cambridge students head into exam term, C Sunday constitutes a final hurrah, expending all their energy before knuckling down. The spirit of revelry, somewhere between a Bacchanalia and a large-scale fraternity party, was infectious. Over the course of the day we witnessed the relentless attempts to scale the central lamppost around which much of the activity throngs (with only one success story). The day offers endless opportunities for people-watching – it turns out I know far more people in the other place than I had previously thought. Everything was infused with a sense of unity, with distinctions between colleges, year groups, and subjects blurred – if you can ignore the sporadic tabloid photographers, and the occasional police officer, both circling the Green like vultures, eager to fashion a tale of excessive debauchery out of what should be a harmless day of letting-off steam.   

C Sunday is definitely a marathon; some fell at the first hurdle, and tapped out even before college brunch. Sustaining ourselves with steady snacking, we managed to maintain just the right level of tipsiness throughout the day to secure our place amongst the survivors who made it to the club night. Although it’s not an occasion for the tee-totaller or the sufferer from hay-fever, for me, C Sunday was definitely worth the four hour bus journey from Oxford, a day of student solidarity, suspending all thoughts of studying in an annual release of tension. If there’s one thing that Cambridge students can boast, perhaps it’s their mastery of the art of day-drinking.  

‘Oxford DIY Pride’ to stage separate Pride event

Laura van Heijnsbergen
-
0
‘Oxford DIY Pride’ to stage separate Pride event

A new organisation has been set up as an alternative to the official Oxford Pride. Oxford DIY Pride plan to host their own pride event across Florence Park Community Centre and the Old Fire Station on 15th June, a week after the official Oxford Pride Event on 7th June.

Oxford DIY Pride objected to the sponsorship of Oxford Pride by Siemens Healthineers, a subsidiary of the German multinational technology conglomerate Siemens, in an Instagram post on 27th April. According to the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions Movement, which identifies corporations with links to Israel and Israeli military action in Gaza and encourages people to boycott them, “Siemens is the main contractor for the Euro-Asia Interconnector, an Israel-EU submarine electricity cable that is planned to connect Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory to Europe.”

Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “With regard to Siemens Healthineers Magnet Technology Oxford (actually a subsidiary separate from Siemens), this partnership was terminated on 29th April 2025. This was due to concerns that their LGBTQIA+ staff could be subject to harassment by those pressuring them to cut ties with us. It is unacceptable that any individual should feel threatened for supporting a Pride event.”

Siemens Healthineers are currently developing a £250 million facility for MRI cooling technology in North Oxfordshire, which they claim will bring more than 1,300 skilled jobs to the local area. Siemens Global call themselves “allies and advocates” and feature testimony from LGBTQ+ and “ally” employees on a dedicated webpage. 

Oxford DIY Pride acknowledged the “termination” of the partnership on their Instagram page. However, Oxford DIY Pride still plan to go ahead with the separate event, arguing that there is a “clear desire for a non-corporate pride” in Oxford, and that other corporations involved in the sponsorship of the main Pride event also have ties to genocide in Gaza. Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “We’re aware of a small group planning an alternative event. We welcome all community-led initiatives, including those that focus solely on protest or expression.”

Oxford Pride has grown significantly in recent years. In 2023, Oxford Pride reported shareholder assets of £46,850, almost quadruple that of the £12,635 total in 2021. The BBC reported an attendance of thousands at Oxford Pride in 2022, and the 2024 event hosted performers at three different stages throughout the city centre.

Oxford DIY Pride claim that Oxford Pride deflected criticism over the sponsorship by arguing that they are “not political”. Oxford Pride told Cherwell: “As organisers, we remain politically neutral and work hard to create a space that reflects the full spectrum of our LGBTQIA+ community. Furthermore, Oxford Pride is a registered charity, and the Charity Commission clearly states that we are legally not allowed to take political positions that fall outside of our charitable objectives which are LGBTQIA+ rights within Oxford and Oxfordshire.” 

The Charity Commission states that political campaigning or political activity “must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.” For these purposes, political activity is defined in terms of seeking to change government policy or legislation.

Oxford DIY Pride told Cherwell: “Caring about, promoting and celebrating LGBTQ+ people does not exist in a vacuum; our identities are interconnected, and the struggle of one oppressed people does not separate them from the struggle of another. Pride began as a protest, and now more than ever must continue to reflect that character, to demonstrate queerness and unity when our human rights are ignored, threatened or revoked.

When we look to Palestinians, whose human rights have been violated time and again over the past 77 years, there is an innate solidarity there. Pride is about defiant existence in the face of forces that do not want us to be here; Palestinians embody this every day.”

This tension between ideas of Pride as a protest and corporate sponsorship of Pride events is not one unique to Oxford. DIY Pride themselves cite similar events in Brighton and Reading as their inspiration, and there have been further instances of pro-Palestinian action in relation to Pride events in Birmingham, Glasgow and Exeter.

Cherwell has approached Siemens for comment.

5 Summer Travel Ideas For Students 

External Contributor
-
0
5 Summer Travel Ideas For Students 

Travelling is almost considered as a right of passage for students. So, if you’re thinking of using your time off to travel or just want some summer travel ideas that won’t blow your budget, here are just a handful of options you could consider:

  1. Apply For a Summer Job

Travelling while earning money is a no brainer for some students and gives more purpose to your time away. Whether it’s working the bar in Ibiza or teaching English as a foreign language, summer jobs are a great way to explore new cities and experience a variety of cultures while also earning money and gaining vital work experience. 

  1. City Hop

Travelling between European cities can be easily achieved on any budget, particularly with numerous budget airlines and railways. Interrail through several of Europe’s most popular destinations like Prague, Berlin, and Amsterdam and explore at your own pace. With plenty of budget accommodation in and around Europe, and student discounts on international rail passes, you can make the most out of Europe without breaking the bank. 

  1. Go on a Road Trip

If you’d prefer to stay closer to home, why not road trip around the UK? One notable option is the North Coast 500, a route of just over 500 miles across the stunning coast of Scotland. The route features a range of unforgettable experiences, from mesmerising sceneries to some of the best pubs in the UK. If you don’t have a car, you can always hire one. There are places that offer young driver car hire, so you can enjoy your road trip without the hassle. 

  1. Backpack Around Asia 

If you’re looking to experience a completely different culture to the UK, consider a tour of Asia. Not only is backpacking around Asia a unique experience, but most countries within the continent are very affordable, making it much easier to keep costs down. From public transport to food and accommodation, expenses are typically much lower than the likes of popular destinations in Europe. 

  1. Do Volunteer Work

Volunteering abroad is a great way to gain life and work experience whilst keeping travel costs down. There are numerous volunteer programmes all around the world that offer accommodation and food within the price, so you can explore more places for less of a price tag. Whether it’s a wild cat sanctuary in South Africa or a conservation project in Costa Rica, the options are endless. 

Get Going!

Whether you apply for a summer job abroad or road trip around the UK, travelling is a great way to gain life and work experience. And with plenty of affordable ways to travel, there’s really no excuse – so get booking! 

Decentering men: Feminist empowerment or brutal asceticism?

Maddie Gillett
-
0
Decentering men: Feminist empowerment or brutal asceticism?

Dating can be frustrating, to say the least. Being trapped in a situationship with someone who throws around pop-psychology terms such as ‘commitment issues’ to diagnose their lack of effort  is an all-too-common occurrence. To like someone and act authentically seems to be a dying art – what is true love without relentless anxiety and the “what are we” talk, anyway? Many women, tired of fruitless “talking stages” and begging for the bare minimum,  may be familiar with online discourse on “decentering” men – I know I am. But why is this specifically aimed at women? And what does it mean exactly, to”decenter” nearly half of the population? 

Decentering men is a fourth-wave feminist concept, originating in the early 2020s, which most commonly focuses on the experiences of heterosexual women. Proponents argue that women’s lives are far too contingent on male validation, so that romantic involvement is seen as a prerequisite to fulfilment. Fear-mongering influencers warn that a woman might neglect her goals (career or otherwise) if her thoughts are consumed by a mere man – and the emphasis is on your Hinge date being “just some guy”. It is thought that women are more likely to excuse poor behaviour because of the patriarchal roots of relationships, which make women crave the romantic approval of men more than vice versa. Thus, there is a need to make an active effort to decenter men. This, at first, seems nothing but empowering: after all, we no longer live in a society where women rely on men for their livelihood. 

But does this movement go too far? Obsession is not always self-effacing, or contrary to feminist principles of independence. Sometimes this is merely excitement, and it is only human for this to become distracting. The most celebrated romance novels, while, of course, being idealistic, portray love as all-consuming, and even sickening at times, nor is this trope reserved for women. Perhaps the decentering movement goes too far in gendering modern dating. Maybe love doesn’t need to be constantly politicised, and worrying about the feminist implications of really liking your talking stage actually just ruins what would otherwise be an enjoyable experience. In my own experience, over-literal subscription to such ideas only exacerbated the perfectionism I already suffered from: I distinctly remember calling my mum in tears, thinking I was letting down my gender for getting distracted from a Prelims essay (it didn’t even count towards my grade – yikes). Is the doctrine of decentering, therefore, too harsh? 

Cliché as it is, it seems that finding a balance is the best means to navigate this movement. Being distracted by someone who treats you well is not necessarily a weakness; on the contrary, it is often a source of happiness, and what’s more self-empowering than that? However, the issue arises when another person becomes the only source of such happiness. Decentering men can be a helpful way to realise that a relationship is not necessary to feel whole in yourself – especially considering how many people seek out the concept of one, without even enjoying the reality of it. After all, it is this mindset that leads to letting your standards slip. Boredom and the desire to be “locked in” to an undefined someone has led me, a self-proclaimed feminist, to excuse some truly egregious behaviour. I’m still haunted by my friends’ disappointed faces when I finally told them the full truth ex post facto – “you never mentioned that he said that!”. So, before you make your next pros and cons list (not a terrific sign, might I add), consider: is he really all that? 

Concerns over University plans to halt funding for admissions tests

Noah Robson
-
0
Concerns over University plans to halt funding for admissions tests

Plans by the University of Oxford to stop subsidising admissions test fees have been criticised in a motion set to be tabled at the first meeting of the ‘Conference of the Common Rooms’ (CCR). The University has been conducting a consultation on the proposal, which would take effect from 2026.

Currently, Oxford’s own admissions tests are free for all applicants, with the costs being covered by funding from the University. This is unlike Cambridge University, where admissions tests must be paid for by candidates, with the Engineering and Science Admissions Test (ESAT) costing up to £130.

According to the motion, colleges have been presented with the option of either taking on the costs of testing themselves, or charging prospective students individually. If the latter option were to be taken, a currently unspecified fee waiver system would be put in place for certain applicants.

Cherwell understands that Oxford had agreed to continue the funding arrangement with Pearson VUE – the organisation which runs the tests – on a short-term basis for both 2024 and 2025, whilst a permanent arrangement was agreed. 

The issue is set to be brought up at the newly-established CCR, organised by the Student Union (SU), on Thursday 15th May. If the motion were to pass, it would mandate the SU to advocate for alternatives to Oxford-only testing, such as the potential for “collaboration with other similarly selective universities”.

The motion raises concerns that such a move might “exacerbate college disparities and disincentivise open offers”. It also warns of impacts on the University’s access policies, highlighting the importance of preventing the “psychological barriers to Oxford applications from becoming any higher than they already are”.

In response to the claims, Oxford University told Cherwell: “A consultation is currently underway across the collegiate University in relation to 2026 undergraduate admission tests. The outcome of that consultation will be shared in due course.”

1...262728...2,521Page 27 of 2,521

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