Oxford Vegan and Vegetarian Society (VegSoc) are launching a new ‘Two Day A Week Campaign’. This would involve Oxford all colleges serving two hall meals a week completely meatfree.
The Two Day A Week Campaign manager, Calum Isaacs said to Cherwell: “Many college halls have introduced one meatless day a week with great success. We think this should be increased by one extra day to further reduce meat consumption around the university, so that all colleges can reduce their carbon footprints”. Many colleges across the University have set a commitment to reach net-zero carbon, the University itself committing to a target of 2035; VegSoc believes this will be more accessible and realistic with adoption of the Two Day a Week Campaign.”
VegSoc believes that the power behind this campaign will come from Oxford students. The first measures for putting the motion in place will come “democratically through all JCRs in the next month”. The Campaign hopes that they will be successful in pushing “two veggie days a week in every college hall by the end of the academic year” and will work with colleges and their catering management to sort out the steps to put the change into effect after students have shown their support.
Wadham College Student Union voted in 2014 in support of Meat-Free Mondays with the attitude to improve student health and to help the planet. As of 2019, the college voted in another meat-free day. A vegetarian student at Wadham reported “mixed responses”, with some students having “decided to opt out of these dinners” due to a lack of “sufficient choice” following the decision.
There has been much attention in recent years to the negative environmental impact that the production of animal produce, namely the beef and dairy industries, have on the planet. Isaacs argues that meat consumption “incentivises livestock farming that produces animals that release methane, which has a much stronger greenhouse gas effect than even CO2. It also motivates carbon-producing deforestation through inefficient land use”. These meat and dairy industries alone contribute to 50% of total emissions and 67% of deforestation. VegSoc believes that spreading a vegetarian diet across the university for two days a week will “add up to a significant reduction” on the University’s carbon footprint.
Aside from environmental reasons, the benefits of a vegetarian diet have been proven to reduce the risks of colon cancer which red and processed meats have been found to contribute to.
Hertford student, Kirsten Fletcher, supports the campaign. She said to Cherwell, “considering the ethical and environmental implications of the way we eat should be an effort made by everyone, not just passionate environmentalists and animal lovers”.
“In reality, plant-based food is very simple to incorporate into student life, and the campaign is a great way to introduce people to vegetarian food and challenge preconceptions that eating plant-based meals is a dramatic or difficult change”.VegSoc calls for “anyone who thinks that they agree with this to get involved” and students can do so by following their social media and can join the campaign by signing up to be a college rep using the link on their Facebook.
Quid. Dosh. Smackers. Dough. We have numerous slang names for it, but we’re still afraid to talk about it. What is it? The intimidating, uncomfortable, best avoided m-word: money.
We all know it, and the cast of Cabaret even sing it: Money makes the world go round. It’s a part of everyday life. Few people have the luxury of not thinking about their spending on a regular basis, yet we keep these conversations internal, afraid to put what are often very real worries and concerns into words.
Money is undeniably a difficult subject matter to discuss. It’s complicated, personal and oftentimes, distressing. “How’s your financial situation?” doesn’t follow in the series of small talk questions about one’s family and the weather, it’s not pleasant chit-chat, but conversations around money are important to have. The yo-yoing of the stock market and state of the economy can be dinner table discussions, but when it comes to personal finance, the message seems to be, say nothing at all.
There’s a stigma that comes with talking about money. A report by Lloyds Bank in 2019 described the ‘m-word’ as Britain’s greatest taboo, higher than sex (42%), religion (26%) or politics (14%). A Lowell report, which surveyed 2,000 UK adults in the same year, also revealed that people find it socially unacceptable to talk about money and more specifically debt, yet 73% of the UK say their finances cause them to feel stressed.
Knowledge is power, and knowing more about money, particularly as students, will better enable us to navigate our financial present and future. Finances are a private matter but conversations about money can help lighten the burden of financial worry many people carry.
Money is inherently tied to class, something which, in its own right, is difficult to openly discuss. But conversations about money don’t have to morph into uncomfortable disputes about social status. The right conversations about money are not impolite but instead can be beneficial. Developing strong financial literacy can make it easier to learn from each other about budgeting, saving and planning financially for the future.
Financial planner and New York Times columnist, Carl Richards, wrote that because of a lack of financial education, our first conversations about money are often like running into an electric fence that we didn’t know was electric. Starting these conversations is hard but as Richards said, the key to doing so is to just start: “Think of it like ripping off a Band-Aid. It’s probably going to hurt a bit, but you have to do it anyway. So just do it.”
For many students, the financial burdens of tuition loans, battels and the ever-expensive cost of socialising, to name but a few costs, weigh heavily throughout our time at university, and will continue to do so after we graduate. In 2017, only 4% of 18-24 year olds felt comfortable enough to ask for financial advice.
Articles like this spring up in sporadic periods, usually after reports, like those mentioned, are published. But little, if anything, seems to change. Many of us are still fearful of and uncomfortable about discussing financial issues. How can we remove the stigma around financial conversations? Where do they even start?
For one, it’s here, in this very section, a space where these conversations can openly take place, without shame, embarrassment or judgement. Conversations like these don’t move from being unthinkable to comfortable overnight. But things won’t change unless we start talking.
If you would like to contribute to Cherwell’s Money Talk or Money Diaries column, get in touch by emailing [email protected].
Late in April of this year, I found the dying embers of the Monday Night Football show running, long after Leicester City had come back from a goal down to finish off a decent Crystal Palace side 2-1 in the evening’s only game. Normally, the post-game debriefs from Carragher and Neville follow the same cliché: tasteless analysis, Leicester being a ‘well-run club’ with a ‘good recruitment process’, or speculation about a 74-year old manager keeping a club like Palace in the top flight for another season.
This evening, however, there was a distinct difference. Carragher was not joined by Neville, and although extras like Henry and Pochettino had gone on the show before, this time there was a face from the women’s game. She was speaking at a critical moment for the sport, and her very presence was a sign of the immense progress that ladies’ football has made over the past decade, ever since Eniola Aluko made her debut as the first female Match of the Day pundit back in 2014. It was none other than Steph Houghton, England and Manchester City captain, a stalwart of the English game for the past 15 years and perhaps the nation’s most recognisable face when it comes to women’s football.
The most significant consequence of all of this is establishing some manifest equality of opportunity in football — which naturally any fan of the game should seek, for the betterment of the sport we all know and love.
The most significant consequence of all of this is establishing some manifest equality of opportunity in football — which naturally any fan of the game should seek, for the betterment of the sport we all know and love. For the first time in English footballing history, there is a degree of parity between the number of games shown, on the same platform, between the men and the women. Highlights too, shown on the BBC and Sky YouTube channels respectively, will level up accessibility, of which the women’s game has been deprived for so long. It’s worth noting that the commentators we normally hear on Super Sunday, like Martin Tyler, will be covering the WSL — a strong vote of confidence from broadcasters that such fixtures are worth the timeand money. Perhaps it is hoped this will trickle down into the viewership and inspire a similar kind of engagement from the wider footballing audience.
Very rarely does something like this create an appeal for an entirely new demographic. Extra coverage either entails further engagement from an audience that already exists, or fresh engagement from a latent, peripheral audience with a real but untapped interest. This should not be viewed negatively or restrictively however, as engagement from this latter group can lead to tremendous growth. The most recent example of this can be seen in the Hundred, the new fast-paced, 100-ball franchise-form of cricket that took the sporting world by storm this summer. Heavily criticised by purists (I, among others, thought the idea was a farce), the event turned out to be a huge success, particularly for what it did for the women’s game. Each men’s game was preceded by the same fixture of the women’s teams at the same venue, and this attracted cricket fans, perhaps initially only interested in the men’s game, to the women’s games too. I for one had one of my best days out watching cricket at Lord’s in early August, seeing both the men and the women of London Spirit and Trent Rockets fight it out in an intense and enthralling evening. Crucially, people like me who were interested in cricket but had never really watched women’s cricket before finally got to see it in its best light. The Hundred managed to tap into an unrealised audience, and the women’s fixtures became more popular.
By increasing the exposure of the WSL through this new TV deal, I’m certainly optimistic that the female game can see some kind of bounce in viewership from general fans, just trying to get as much football as they can whatever the shape or the size. This ultimately was behind the success of the games in the Hundred — as England legend Michael Atherton said “If you put games on in high summer at reasonable prices, people will come and watch”. He’s an intelligent man our Atherton, and he certainly wasn’t wrong. Yet, we find ourselves in 2021, with a deeply ingrained sense of moral self-righteousness, living an in era where the ills of inequality surely can no longer remain, and it strikes me that this ‘landmark’ deal has been a long time coming, and perhaps that women’s football in this country is slightly behind the curve. Of course, it’s certainly on the right track — but it’s nowhere near where it should be. We see Emma Raducanu and the women’s tennis game attracting similar attention to the men’s (if not more, in light of her astounding win at the US Open this year). This begs the question, why has such a deal only been reached now? What more do we need to do to bring more football-lovers into the women’s game? How can we elevate the status of ladies’ football? It seems as though there’s a wealth of potential left untapped, hindered by years of lurking in the shadows, not receiving the attention nor investment it so needed or deserved. Lessons can be learnt from the Hundred and Raducanu, but crucially only time will tell. As we see the end of another round of fixtures in the WSL, we take valiant steps in the right direction, and the sporting world awaits the results of this most noble of tasks.
Hundreds of Oxford students gathered by the Bodleaian steps on Broad Street last night to protest against drink spiking in nightclubs. The local campaign was led by the Oxford Night In and The Big Night In Oxford groups as part of a nationwide boycott of nightclubs.
The protest began with a series of speeches on the steps of the Bodeleian, followed by a march through the city. The march passed by the popular nightclubs ATIK and Bridge, although both were shut. Protestors returned to the Bodleian before disbanding for the night.
Cherwell spoke to Rose Morley, one of the event’s organisers and a student at Teddy Hall: “I started the Oxford initiation of the National Night In movement. I texted the SU (The WomCam) and asked if they were doing anything, and they said not yet. We’ve been collaborating on this since then. I have only been able to do it with everyone helping me.”
Though students of both Oxford universities were present at the protests by the Bodleian, students of Oxford University and Oxford Brookes have been organising their own branch of the protest. Oxford University students organised the page ‘Oxford Night In’, and Oxford Brookes students organised via their page ‘The Big Night In Oxford.’
When asked about the process of arranging the protest, which only began a few days before the protest was scheduled to happen, Rose responded, “A lot of it was just a lot of admin: getting the word out, raising awareness, making Instagram stories, emailing people. One of the largest things was making sure that we were in line with the national goals. We had three strands of things we wanted to do, but we made sure we weren’t advocating stuff like increased police presence. We didn’t want to give the government an excuse to increase police presence and hijack our movement, so to speak.”
Rose also told Cherwell that the organiser received numerous testimonies of drink spiking. She added that “going through each of those and taking the care and time to go through each of them was really important to us”.
The organisers arranged for Oxford Council Member, Shaista Aziz, to speak at the protest. Aziz is the Council Member for Inclusive Communities in Oxford, and delivered a speech about the multiple ways women and girls face violence in the UK. Aziz told Cherwell following the main speaker stage of the protest: “This is an incredible turnout. It just shows how important this issue is not only to women students who are primarily the targets of spiking. There’s people of all genders here- there’s men, there’s people from the non binary community- so it’s really important to see this solidarity and this unity.”
She continued: “ I hope that this energy is galvanised into the universities in our city also ensuring that they ensure their duty of care to the student population, but we need to see action and we need to see accountability. People here are speaking with one voice.”
Anvee Bhutani, the SU President who was at the demonstrations, told Cherwell: “It was so great to see over 500 people gather tonight against spiking, but heartbreaking that we have to do something like this in the first place. Women deserve better and we are demanding better. At the SU, our VP Women is working hard to promote women’s safety alongside the SU Women’s Campaign who helped organise the event and It Happens Here, the SU campaign against sexual assault. Action on this issue starts with us and the solidarity shown tonight was very powerful.”
Oxford SU President Anvee Bhutani (wearing a pink coat) on the Clarendon Building steps.
Crowds gathered on Broad Street to listen to speakers.
Cherwell had the opportunity to speak to several protesters about their experience at the event. Lucy Cerys, a student at Teddy Hall, shared: “I’ve had an experience with being spiked. Women generally feel unsafe to walk out, to wear what they want, and to be who they are. I think it’s incredible that so many people came out to support this protest. I came out to stand in solidarity with women generally, not only for myself but for other people.”
Lucy discussed her perspective on the impact the protest had: “I think it showed that we are fed up, that we’re sick of it, that we’re not going to stand for it anymore, and that actually it is our human right to be safe and to not be spiked on our night out. Hopefully, the more we walk, the more we talk, it’s just about starting a conversation and holding people to account.”
Helena Aeberli, a Jesus College student who also demonstrated, told Cherwell: “Having already had a [Jesus] FemSoc discussion on women’s university experiences planned for the 27th, it was invigorating yet also damning, to know hundreds of other people across the country were having the same discussions as us.”
She continued: “The protest tonight was important, but it can’t be enough alone. Governments can claim solidarity without policy, and clubs like Park End can shut for a night and make up profit tomorrow without really changing their ways. It’s more important than ever that we continue to keep our voices heard and our actions radical rather than letting these issues slip back below the surface.”
Students marching down Merton Street.
An open letter, signed by numerous College JCRs, the Oxford SU, and other related student groups, was also recently sent to Oxford nightclubs. The letter outlined the dangers of drink spiking and measures that Oxford nightclubs should take to prevent drink spiking. These measures include the presence of “further CCTV which covers all areas of the nightclub”, the provision of “drink covers and test strips”, and a designated welfare officer who would be “identifiable with a high visibility jacket”.
The Oxford Union voted against the motion ‘This house would still look to the US for Global Leadership’. The debate took place amid a packed chamber, with many members coming to watch this term’s US debate.
The motion came in the wake of controversial American withdrawal from Afghanistan, which raised questions about the US and its role as a global leader. It failed with 124 votes in favour and 166 against.
Speakers in favour of the motion included Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who held a number of cabinet positions under Thatcher and Major including Foreign and Defence secretary; former Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman; and former Conservative Party co-chairman James Cleverly MP. Dr Laura Smith, Senior Access Officer at the Oxford Union, also proposed the motion.
The motion was opposed by Russian Ambassador to the UK Andrey Kelin, Professor Amitav Acharya, Professor of International Relations at the American University, Washington DC, and two students: Simon van Teutem and Patrick Cole.
Union President Chengkai Xie opened, after which Dr. Laura Smith took the floor, introducing the speakers and assuring the audience that the Russian ambassador, speaking for the opposition, “probably knows who should be replacing the US”.
Van Teutem opened for the opposition, asserting that the UK, as a part of Europe, should look with the continent elsewhere. He criticised the decision by Americans to blindside France with the AUKUS, and the failure that left “citizens, translators and refugees behind” in Afghanistan. “If Europe wants to defend its long-term interests, looking to the US, leaning on the US, is worthless”.
In response, Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC told a string of jokes, saying that “ambassadors can be disarming even if their countries aren’t”, prompting laughter and applause from the chamber. He defended American leadership as an example to the world, showing that the rule of law worked there in a way it did not elsewhere. He could not, however, have supported the motion if Trump was still the president, assuring that “if the choice on the ballot were between Trump and Putin, he might just choose Vladimir Putin”.
Ambassador Andrey Kelin started by agreeing with a condemnation of communism and saying that Russians, too, had wanted to be Western, but that the West had refused to help. He said that “The US won the first cold war as it was only facing one opponent. Now, in the new Cold War, it is facing two opponents, Russia and China”. He said that the US should look at itself, going as it did from crisis to crisis. If the democratic system was so strong, he wondered, how could it be that the Russians were supposedly influencing debates and elections?
While the Ambassador was telling the audience that the policy of Russia was very simply aimed at sovereignty, Charlie Mackintosh, Standing Committee of the Oxford Union, interrupted to ask what that meant for the sovereignty of Georgia and Ukraine. The Ambassador attempted a response involving ethnic Russians and the Russian language. He ended by denouncing US aggression, sanctions and military power.
Congresswoman Harman began by announcing that her vote on the Iraq war was “wrong”. She said that the US is not perfect, but despite its defects, its leadership is strong and urgently needed. “China and Russia have squandered the best opportunity they had to present a convincing alternative”. She told the audience that Russia poisoned two of its citizens on UK soil, and that foreign actors showed that US leadership was needed now more than ever.
The last speaker before the open debate, Amitav Acharya, questioned the idea that the liberal order will collapse without America. Much of US policy, he asserted, was built around the hubristic notion that they had to lead. However, China spends more money on international development than the United States, so “why shouldn’t they lead?” According to him, much of American aid was aimed at fighting fires they started themselves. He said that the US was losing to free-riders and that the world needed a G+ approach.
After an enthusiastic floor debate, James Cleverly MP started his speech by paraphrasing Tony Blair saying that “outside elections we choose between this government and a perfect option, now we choose between this government and the alternative”. He reminded the audience of America’s “tendency to drift toward isolationism” and that only by looking at the US, could we ensure that they were the best versions of themselves.
The last speaker for the opposition, Patrick Cole, spoke on the imperative to move beyond imperialist attitude. In the end, a majority of the audience agreed with him and his fellow opposition speakers. AYES: 124 NOES: 166
In response to an open letter from English students in which they outlined their concerns regarding the Al Jazeera report into sexual harassment at Oxford, the Board of the Faculty of English told students that Professor Orchard is not teaching students at undergraduate or Masters level by mutual agreement. The Faculty added that they are “in individual discussion with research students about their supervision arrangements”, as the Professor Orchard has been employed by Oxford on a research project since 2013.
Andy Orchard has been employed by the University on a research project since 2016. He has also previously taught at the University of Cambridge and the University of Toronto. He is a fellow of Pembroke College. One allegation claimed that during a previous post Orchard told them, while drunk, “I’m going to fire one last shot of testosterone across your bow”.
The letter by the Faculty of English, sent to all students reading the subject, stated that the University, Division, and Faculty are “in the process of setting up a meeting with student representatives to discuss the issues raised” and “explain what is and is not possible in this case”.
The Faculty adds: “The purpose of this meeting will be to make sure our Faculty’s opposition to sexual harassment is as strongly embedded in the culture as it can be.”
The Faculty made it clear that there are “legal impediments in publishing specific formal statements of the kind [the students] may be hoping for” from the open letter.
A panel, led by the Director of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion, Dr Nicholas Perkins, will also be convened to conduct a review of processes on how the Faculty deals with harassment complaints.
The letter also listed the University’s resources for reporting harassment and the ways in which students can access welfare support relating to harassment.
“Conversations are ongoing, and we are committed to making sure that we can all learn and teach in a safe environment. We welcome your active engagement in these conversations.”
Bryan Cranston addressed the Oxford Union last Wednesday evening, speaking on a range of topics including his career as an actor, his advice to aspiring creatives, and the future of the film industry post-pandemic.
Mr Cranston has had an illustrious acting career, and is best-known for his role as Walter White in the hit television series Breaking Bad. He is also known for his appearances as Hal in Malcolm in the Middle and Dr Tim Whatley in Seinfeld. He has won numerous awards, including a Golden Globe, and Tony and Emmy awards. He has also been nominated for several further awards, including an Academy Award, Golden Globes, and a BAFTA.
Bryan Cranston talking to Oxford Union President Chengkai Xie. Credit: The Oxford Union
Mr Cranston began the event by reminiscing on the importance of Oxford to him and his wife, Robin Dearden, describing it as the place where they first “formed a commitment to each other” after meeting on the set of the TV show Airwolf.
Reflecting on the past year, he joked about being offered the role of Joe Exotic in a proposed drama production ofsmash hit series Tiger King. He refused the role because he thought he wasn’t a good fit for the part, but he was also troubled by the idea of adapting the documentary. “Why do something again? Why be the derivative of something that works well?”
Originality is key for Cranston, and is one reason why he says he is reluctant to play Shakespeare’s King Lear, despite it being a dream role for him. He said he would not play Lear unless he can find an interpretation different from previous performances.
Due to being, in his words, an “old white male actor”, Cranston said that he often wonders ‘where is a good place to live’ in contemporary society and which roles are best for him. He mentioned the controversy surrounding the 2017 film The Upside, which he appeared in, and which was backed by Harvey Weinstein’s production company before a new distributor was found in the wake of sexual abuse allegations against Weinstein. The film caused further controversy due to Cranston, an able-bodied actor, playing a quadriplegic man. Although Cranston said that he was initially unsure about taking on the part, he ultimately decided to accept the role because he was invested in the film’s story. Mr Cranston nonetheless commented that, going forwards, there should be more roles for actors from “disenfranchised” groups.
On what made Breaking Bad, widely considered one of the greatest TV shows of the 21st century, so successful, he fully credits Vince Gilligan’s excellent writing. “It’s always the writing [that makes a show great]. Some of the hardest work I’ve had to do is work with bad writing.” Cranston notes that Gilligan, who famously said that he wanted to “take Walter White from ‘Mr Chips to Scarface’”, “had an idea that’s never been done on TV before – to change a character in the middle of a series”. The show follows the terminally-ill Walter White, who goes from being a chemistry teacher trying to financially support his family to becoming a ruthless drug overlord.
Cranston had originally been playing a comic character in Malcolm in the Middle, so the switch to Breaking Bad was an important transition for him. Flexibility is also a central part of his personal philosophy: ‘‘I’ve always admired anyone who can voluntarily become a beginner at something”. Cranston also outlined the most important tenets of acting: confidence, ability to empathise, research and imagination. He specifies “quiet confidence” as core to his success: “if you’re not walking into a room ready to sell yourself, you’re not going to get anywhere.”
He also discussed the process of using one’s personal history to empathise with a character, and the emotional toll it can take on actors. “You have to be ready to crack open your chest cavity and say you want anger? Here it is. You want sadness? Here it is. As an actor, I look for that vulnerability, that point that I can climb into a person. You have to be willing to reach down and pull it out,” he said.
For Cranston, acting is also based on the universality of storytelling: “We all want to be told a story, and that never stops.”
In response to a question about the differences between acting onstage and for the screen, Cranston commented on the ‘reciprocal’ relationship that exists between an audience and performer in the theatre. He described the “reciprocal” relationship that exists between audience and performers in the theatre, claiming that “there’s nothing like having that audience feed you – it’s kind of like a drug”. Cranston also said that he finds performing onstage “much harder – physically, emotionally demanding” due to having to perform most nights a week for a long period of time, compared to what he terms the “bits and pieces” way in which film and TV are shot.
In response to an audience member asking what his advice for aspiring actors still “waiting for that yes”, Mr Cranston said “There’s no shortage of people in the arts. You have to have talent, perseverance, patience – and luck! You can’t manufacture it. You can’t will it to come to you.”
Discussing the reasons he wanted to become an actor, he said that he had initially gone to junior college to train as a police officer, because he “thought it was a manly thing”. He said that he “had no money and no parental support” at the time. But Mr Cranston described having an “epiphany” when he was 22: reading Hedda Gabler in a restaurant late at night. He was so engrossed in the play that he looked up and realised that he “had missed the transition from day to night. I was so into the play – I thought, maybe that’s the key.”
Mr Cranston said that being this absorbed and fascinated by art is crucial if you want to make it in the business: “You have to have a love affair relationship with the arts…You have to have a committed relationship with it. You’ve got to be in love with it.”
Having been asked by an audience member what his opinion was on the role of politics in art, and specifically the political undertones of Breaking Bad, Cranston said that he thinks it’s “right” for art to engage with political themes. He said he “was very pleased to be involved in something that illuminates America’s socio-political context, and the role of teachers”, asking “why should a teacher have to have a second job?”
Although he has enjoyed immense success over the past decade, Cranston’s career has not always been plain sailing. The hardest moment was shortly after marriage to Dearden, when there were no opportunities coming in: “I felt like a substitute football player. Like: ‘I’m here, but I’m not playing’.”
His attitude completely changed once he let go of the fear of being rejected from auditions. “I used to go to an audition to get a job. It was a lot of nos. You have to get all the nos to get to the yes- it can erode self confidence.” But then he said he realised “I’m not going into that room to go and get a job, I’m going into the room to do my job- interpret the text, come up with a compelling character, and present it. If you’re there to give them something, then you retain the power”. This new approach “cleansed me- it made me feel clean.”
He doesn’t deny the importance of perseverance, commenting that: “there is no magic dust. It’s going to take a lot of work”- but also claims that his viewpoint “will save you”. Speaking to Cherwell at the end of the event on the future of film and TV post-pandemic, Cranston says that he is “hoping for more happy endings”.
South Asia is a place desired for its beautiful things- buildings, songs, colours, and spices- but never for its people. The land contains an array of sensory delights and academic niches engaging and mysterious to Western audiences. But any reminder that these are tied to a heritage and a people beyond their grasp is unattractive and unwanted.
Desis are often forced to exist in a polarising landscape, whereby they can either be the ugly punchline of a joke with a strange accent, or exotic and untamed. This dichotomy is strongly influenced by gender, since desi men are typically seen as predatorial and perverted- no doubt we’ve all heard jokes about ‘weird Indian men’ in white girls’ dms; whilst desi women are either bestial and ungroomed, or heteronomous objects.
The stringent categorisation of desis by outsiders also leaves those in the non-binary, genderqueer, and transgender communities out, forcing perceptions of them to fit one of these two cis-normative categories. No one can win, especially when our appearances are so important to defining how non-desis see us.
Approaching this issue from the perspective of a cis-gendered South Asian woman, I think it’s a nice form of bonding for us desi girls to recall our experiences of being the ‘undesirable’, or even ‘weird’ one amongst our (white) friends.
Having attended several social events recently, I’ve been making a much greater effort with my appearance than usual. This includes kohl, wearing kurtay as dresses, and intensely watching different celebrities’ Vogue makeup routines.
Despite all this effort, I regularly feel overlooked in favour of my white peers. I know that this isn’t just a ‘me problem’, having discussed this with my other Asian friends, but it feels incredibly personal.
No matter how much time I spend trying to look presentable, figuring out which angles my nose looks okay from, my attempts to look nice will always be tinged with a foreign ugliness that disparages my aesthetic and even academic efforts (but that’s another conversation). And this will stay the same for as long as my skin is tinged with melatonin. There are some brown girls whose adherence to modern beauty standards are so obvious, that their attractiveness is never in doubt: but I’m not one of them and there’s nothing I can do to change that.
I believe that the rest of us desis are stuck, knowing that we’ll never be considered the pretty one. How they might feel hideous and trapped in an immediately unsightly form; how pretty is never our default. It takes an extra effort to feel good, but this merely highlights the disparity between me and my white friends. I find myself comparing facial features and body type in a horribly objectifying, demeaning, but reassuring manner, just to figure out where the difference lies.
I’m 20 now and I’ve finally found it.
This feeling of inferiority has been made explicitly to me and others in many instances, but most often in the pits of Atik or Rusty’s, where swarms of sweaty, handsy men clamour for any girls’ attention except for ours. The few times I’ve been considered ‘enough’ by wider society have also had confusingly disparaging, racial undertones. A few times my skin colour has been an outstanding and exotic feature, “lovely” but ever so noticeable for it. In other instances, my small size is made out as appealing: an infantilising and disturbingly common depiction of desi women.
There’s a long list of dangers that result from pandering to the same gaze that rejects us.
One is seeking validation- about appearance, personality, and so on- from others, whose job it is not to reaffirm our beauty. Related to this, is the tendency for accelerated romantic relationships that some desi women might experience. Because with these, one might gain constant reassurances of being desirable without having to delegate the task of reassurance to different people who might not be up to it.
Another danger is comparison with other girls, especially desis, and thinking of the things that we could do to emulate or distance ourselves from them more. There are the girls we try to be like, and those we try to avoid. I’m sure most high schools have had at least one of each type in every year group, and as damaging as it is to surround oneself with pretty white girls and always be the second-choice-token-brown-girl, it’s devastating to be dismissed completely.
Some (including myself) come to the natural conclusion that it’s easier to appeal to European ideas of beauty. We figure out early on that whilst beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the beheld is marginalised, the desi beholder is degraded, and the non-desi beholder gratified.
In spite of my attempts to offset these expectations by reclaiming the beauty in my South Asian-ness, I can never entirely get rid of the worry that I’m underperforming for my beholder. That if I try to represent myself in a way inclusive of being desi, I’ll be considered strange or like I’m trying too hard to obtain an ultimately performative image. I’m scared to face those not from my community without first filtering my image through a lens already familiar to them.
So, I keep trying. Listening and carving my appearance into a collage of palatable brown girls and neutered South Asian aesthetics.
The History Faculty has announced that Professor Peter Thompson has agreed that he will not have any contact with students this year, after allegations of inappropriate behaviour were widely publicised following an Al Jazeera investigation. He will also not attend events by the History Faculty and Rothermere American Institute.
Professor Thompson is the current Sydney L. Mayer Associate Professor of American History at Oxford, with research interests in Colonial North America. A former student described Professor Thompson getting drunk and engaging in physically inappropriate behaviour with female students. In 2020, the University upheld complaints of excessive alcohol consumption and sexual harassment against Professor Thompson.
In an email sent to history students, the Faculty said that media coverage of the allegations against Professor Thompson “suggested that the University took no action in response to complaints raised in 2019-20″.
“We would like to reassure you that the complaints against Professor Thompson were fully investigated by the University and that follow-on disciplinary action was instigated. As a result of this, measures were implemented to ensure that the conduct was not repeated and to safeguard staff and students. Monitoring is being undertaken and any breach of those measures will be acted upon,” they continued.
The Faculty are inviting students with questions and concerns to attend a faculty-wide “Listening Exercise” on Friday 12th November at 2-3:30pm on Microsoft Teams. Along side the faculty board will be at least one of the faculty’s harassment officers.
“Everything learned during the course of the Listening Exercise will feed into the work of the Complaints Procedures Working Group established at the end of Trinity Term 2021. The Listening Exercise will not be the only opportunity for students to comment: we will shortly be recruiting student members to that group, and we will seek further input through the Athena-SWAN project on gender equality in the History Faculty, the Race Equality Action Group and through the Faculty’s Gender, Race, Disability and LGBTQ+ Working Groups,” they said.
To not think about a film’s sound is to not think about cinema as a whole experience. However, I’m not going to lie, I have no musical knowledge. For me, soundtracks are one of the most inaccessible elements of film. Yet I’ve learnt by trial and error (and a lot of YouTube videos) that you don’t need to understand music theory to catch a glimpse of the meanings of soundtracks. A great starting point is to simply understand how music makes you feel, and then ask yourself why. Your answers start small – this song makes me feel sad – and you can build from there, considering what this means in relation to a scene. It is in this connection, between sight and sound, we find hidden meanings, story resolutions and emotional journeys – all without a drop of musical theory.
One of my favourite movies of all time is La La Land, and, thanks to being a musical, it possesses bucketfuls of musical symbolism. The final scene of Seb’s jazz bar is one of the most poignant scenes I have watched. The rose-tinted veneer of the musical numbers comes to an end, as both Mia and Seb got their ‘happy ending’, just not with each other. Mia’s story arc concluded with her being a successful actress, but Seb, who always reflected and romanticised the past, never quite being able to let go, is not yet finished. His final piece is a musical medley of their relationship, that turns into a dream sequence of what could have been. The music forces us to reflect, just like Seb, on their relationship and how it almost went so right for them. The music taunts its audience to hope for a happy ending. After seven minutes of montage, the music slows to only a piano, as it plays the simple melody of Mia and Seb’s theme once more. Seb plays it slower and slower, dragging out every key as if he doesn’t want it to end: the melody, and their relationship, helplessly falls through our fingers. But Seb never finishes their theme. What does this tell the audience? That he’s not ready to let go of their relationship for one, but it is also a question for Mia as to whether or not she would like to continue their song. She shakes her head, and Seb leaves the song, starting a new piece instead. Maybe Mia, Seb, and the audience could never get their happy ending of musical proportions, but at least Seb experiences closure, and the dream of La La Land can now come to an end. It’s fitting that a film about music would have its resolution in it as well.
There’s little chance of me talking about soundtracks without talking about Shrek and how it’s a great example of how pop songs can emotionally enrich a soundtrack. The YouTuber Sideways has a whole video about this which I would highly recommend, but I will condense it for you here. When we hear All Star or Bad Reputation, we recall Shrek as happy in the swamp and then fighting people, rendering him a conventional villain. However, if we actually remember the plot, Shrek isn’t happy in the swamp, as he is lonely, and he dislikes the reputation that comes with being an ogre. The pop songs are therefore deliberately misleading; they don’t align with characters’ feelings but instead what people expect from them. Whereas the Shrek score accompanies genuine and honest character moments.
In Shrek 2, we get Shrek storming the castle, one of my favourite scenes of all time. If you listen to the song, it actually has Shrek’s hero theme (as heard in the first film) woven into it, meaning the song represents Shrek’s desire to be the hero, at odds with society’s external pressure for him to be the villain. And as an audience rejoicing this epic moment, we feel this journey through the music.
It’s a very similar principle to the scene where Miles Morales finally becomes Spiderman in Spiderman: Into the Spider-verse. The whole film is about Miles accepting and embracing both parts of his identity, a Hispanic-Black teenager from Brooklyn and the next Spiderman, represented in the music by hip-hop and a classical score respectively. It is in this scene, where Miles learns to embrace his role and his responsibility, that they weave together for the first time. Both Miles and the audience are finally emotionally fulfilled. While pop songs here are used to contrast to the main score emotionally or ideologically, pop songs generally are linked to a character’s emotions. Sometimes this is very simply done, other times we need to spend time thinking about what precisely the characters are feeling in a given moment.
I’ve briefly mentioned the idea of musical themes, and this underpins a lot of film scoring. Often characters or an idea is represented through a piece of music, which is played at times in the movie when it relates to that character or idea. Star Wars is a great one to practice this because John Williams has a theme for everything, from certain relationships to the idea of ‘the force’. Musical themes are an easy element to analyse and appreciate without knowledge of music, audiences simply have to recognise the significance of when it’s played and what’s on-screen. In fact, I think is the easiest way of starting out thinking about movie soundtracks. Audiences perhaps risk losing an intricate understanding of the soundtrack by not understanding, but association is a powerful tool that everyone has the capability of wielding. Starting with association, one can begin to understand why some pieces of music send shivers down your spine, whereas others can feel stale and boring. In terms of filmmaking, audiences’ emotional reaction sits at the very centre of their experience, and everybody has access to that.
