Saturday, April 26, 2025
Blog Page 338

You’re Breaking Up!

0

Dating has always been an awkward affair. The first meeting, the lagging conversation, the nervous laughter at recycled jokes, the grasping at any passing detail which might reignite the repartee. And not knowing whether, at the end of it all, you’ll find yourself embracing the momentary love of a stranger, or the faithfulness of two old friends – Ben and Jerry.

Now add to this a global pandemic. The game is the same, but the rules have changed, and I think it’s fair to say that everyone is still struggling to adjust. In times such as these, when physical contact is all but illegal… well, when it is literally illegal… we’ll just have to ‘improvise, adapt, overcome’. After staring at the ceiling for three hours, contemplating the existential and symbolic nature of dried paint, it’s completely understandable that you might turn to (online) dating as a source of comfort, confidence and phone coitus. Maybe not the last one, if that’s not your style, but no judgment here guys, we’re in a pandemic… it’s not weird… I promise. Ok, in all seriousness though, let’s talk about dates. 

First up, I downloaded Tinder. After some ardent swiping, I eventually came upon a man who I thought might just fit the bill. He was vegan (tick), sporty (tick), interested in working with kids (tick… well, sometimes) and he was funny. I asked him out for a socially-distanced walk. When the day came, he was late. Already off to a bad start. I was swinging an umbrella around casually in my hands, dropped it, hastily bent to pick it up in a somewhat Bridget Jones-like fashion and flung my stooping body back up, hoping that I had not been seen by my potential suitor. Naturally, I had. 

Our socially-distanced walk was really just a regular date, except that I didn’t have to worry about how to greet him and say goodbye. The hug-or-not moment has always proved an awkward one for me, and to be honest, I really dig waving. Big fan. One downside of dating during a pandemic, however, was that I couldn’t see his face properly because of the mask. Another thing is that there’s not many options aside from walking, which could get tiresome if you want the date to last a long time. After the walk, as I waved off the candidate, I decided to give up Tinder for good. It’s just not my style. Two weeks later, of course, I had re-downloaded it, and the swiping frenzy began all over again. 

After this first attempt at dating, I did sign up for Oxmatch, but felt that the guy with whom I had been matched wasn’t quite my type and so I fell back into the arms of my old frenemy, Tinder. My second experience of Covid courting was through a Zoom call. What I liked about this was that I didn’t have to waste any time commuting, dressing up or thinking about where to go. Another pleasant aspect of virtual dates is that you can pretty much leave any time you like – it’s like having a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card. After forty-five minutes, I told my date that I had to study, gratefully clicking that big, delicious ‘Leave the meeting’ button. He was a lovely boy, but again, not for me. This internet dating was proving to be rather a chore. Nevertheless, I found a Zoom date worked in this instance, as I got a taste for what the guy was like without having to commit to a whole evening. I also like the security offered by a virtual date. You don’t have to meet a stranger and go to potentially less public areas, with the possibility of getting spiked or worse. However, the disadvantages of a Zoom date are quite obvious: technical problems. Who would have thought a hundred years ago that you’d be saying to your admirer: “sorry couldn’t quite hear you the WIFI’s terrible, could you say tha—oops sorry no you go… wait… hello? Oh god’. It somewhat strips away that amorous ambience that we’re going for here. 

My third experience of Tinder dating during the pandemic is one that is still ongoing. Quite exciting, really. It also started with a Zoom call. One thing, though, that I wish I had thought of beforehand is to ask whether or not we would be drinking. It was scheduled for the evening, so the thought of buying drinks had crossed my mind but I didn’t go for it in the end. He did drink, however, and he drank alone. It felt a bit weird to watch him as I sat there sober (definitely not according to my usual practice). Before the date, I lost the whole afternoon to nervous reveries and, admittedly, Facebook stalking… vast amounts of Facebook stalking. I was grateful to see that he looked just as good in person (well… in computer) as in his pictures. I was far more grateful to find that he has an awesome personality, awkward and weird in very similar ways to myself. Two hours later, we bid farewell and planned to meet again. During this date, I felt that the technology wasn’t a hindrance at all. It was actually really nice to get to know somebody’s personality purely through speech and visual display, and not having the added element of physical proximity, which puts me more on edge. 

Something which could present itself as either an advantage or a disadvantage is the fact that Zoom puts a limitation on the possibilities of taking the date to completion, if you catch my meaning. I personally considered this to be beneficial, because it meant that we could focus more on each other’s personalities, without complicating things by adding sex. Although as time goes on this would definitely become frustrating. Another thing to take into consideration is height. On Zoom it’s hard to tell how tall somebody is (obviously), which is often something you might like to know. Thankfully, short or tall – I’ll take them all. 

To sum it up, my experience of dating during ‘Doomsday’ has been pretty much just as embarrassing, agonising, uncomfortable and fun as it was before the pandemic. I’m excited to see where things go with Boy No.3 (please don’t tell him about the Facebook stalking I will die) and if you’re thinking of joining the dating scene then I wish you all the best! Also what’s your number? (kidding, obviously…)

Homelessness in Oxfordshire has nearly halved since 2019

0

Homelessness in Oxfordshire has nearly halved since 2019 due to the Oxfordshire County Council’s response to a government directive urging councils to get ‘everyone in’ due to the pandemic. This comes as Oxfordshire County Council commits to a new ‘housing-led’ approach to homelessness, the first of its kind in the country. 

The local councils across the county have estimated that 45 people are currently experiencing rough sleeping, a 46% decrease from the 2019 estimate of 83 people. Three quarters of this figure are people in Oxford, and the Oxford City Council have estimated that 23 people are currently sleeping rough in the city, down from the estimate of 62 from 2019. West Oxfordshire is the only area in the county believed to have experienced an increase in rough sleepers.

The ‘everyone in’ policy directs local councils to offer everyone sleeping rough accommodation throughout the pandemic, with additional support for moving into long-term housing and continued outreach efforts for those that refuse accommodation. Nuffield College has recently turned some of their unused properties into long-term housing for homeless people, in collaboration with the homeless charity Aspire Oxford. 

Oxfordshire’s move to a housing-led approach to homelessness policy comes after the publication of a study last November in collaboration with the charity Crisis. A housing-led approach, according to Crisis, aims to “move people into their own homes as quickly as possible and provide them with the support they need to make it work.” This approach minimises time spent in temporary housing before moving into a more permanent home.

The Cabinet paper, which passed the 24th of February, put forward a move to the housing-led approach suggested by Crisis, prioritising the provision of accommodation in the county. The provisional funding for the housing scheme puts the cost at 3.14M per year, a significant increase from the current figure of £846,600. The scheme will formally begin in Spring of next year.

Mike Rowley, Oxford City Council cabinet member for affordable housing and housing the homeless, said: “The ‘everyone in’ approach gave homeless people a breathing space and in many cases the bit of stability they needed to make successful plans to move on. We need to continue this approach and we’re working closely with our neighbouring councils, Oxfordshire County Council, the NHS and Crisis to make this a reality.”

Image: Nigel James / Tadpole Bridge. River Thames Oxfordshire / CC BY-SA 2.0

Cambridge SU Undergraduate President calls for reading week to improve student wellbeing

0

In a student council meeting on the 1st of February, the Cambridge University Student Union (SU) Undergraduate President, Ben Margolis, proposed his plan to restructure the Cambridge term to create a Reading week in the middle of term. 

The proposal was largely instigated by concerns about student wellbeing in the SU; the results of last year’s SU Student Loneliness Report found that 75% of the student respondents felt lonely at the University on a daily or weekly basis, while in a report conducted by Wonkhe in 2019, the national average for students was 49%. Cambridge students were also twice as likely as UK students to feel that they did not have anyone to call on. The SU report identified the key contributing factor to student loneliness to be the University’s academic workload, with 62% of respondents agreeing with the statement ‘the intensity of the workload is a barrier to making friends and having a healthy social life’. 

The Undergraduate President has concluded that “the current nature of Cambridge education is actively detrimental to student’s education”; “there’s nothing inherently good about a deadline-heavy eight week structure and then nothing for twelve weeks, this doesn’t equate to a good education”. 

As well as tackling loneliness, his proposal hopes to create more time for the academic and extra-curricular opportunities Cambridge offers, as well as to reduce the number of students forced to consider or undertake intermission for academic reasons.

Under the proposal the start of term would be moved forward three days, and the end of term back two days, creating a new week to be used as a reading week, while making sure the term stayed within the 10 week lease most Cambridge colleges offer, and therefore at no extra cost to students. 

The proposal would also introduce a full freshers’ week to Michaelmas term and a weekend. At the moment the Cambridge week runs from Thursday to Friday rather than Monday to Friday, so lectures and classes can take place on the weekend.

Mr Margolis said:  “I was elected on the promise that I would challenge the traditions of Cambridge education, and I wouldn’t shy away from proposing comprehensive solutions to the problems that undergraduate students face.” 

The proposal is currently under consultation. The Undergraduate President must pass a student mandate at a meeting on the 15th March, after which the proposal would be passed to the General Board’s Education Committee for consideration during this academic year.

Colleges announce vacation policies

0

Following the unveiling of the government’s roadmap out of Lockdown in England on February 22nd, Oxford University announced that restrictions in place over the vacation between Hilary and Trinity terms would mean that students currently living in Oxford “should not move from your [their] term-time address, unless you [they] have a legal exemption to do so”.

In December, students had been allowed to leave their term-time addresses for the Christmas vacation. However, this exemption to travel restrictions does not apply for the Easter vacation.

The news that they would not be able to return home was met with alarm by students on social media, many of whom returned to live in college for academic or welfare reasons which would affect their ability to study remotely from home during the term. 

In emails seen by Cherwell, colleges have outlined their policies for students who are resident in college at the end of Hilary term. In line with government guidance, students who wish to return home for the vacation may do so provided they have an exemption under government guidance. 

Hertford College told their students that they “need to remain” in College accommodation unless they “feel you [they] have an exemption from the national restrictions”. Students who remain in college accommodation will not need to request vacation accommodation at the end of Hilary as they usually would.

Mansfield said they “assumed” that anyone living in on or off-site College accommodation would remain there “for the durations of the Easter vacation”. The College added they felt the guidance “places the onus on the student” to decide whether they are eligible to leave.

Keble, Magdalen and St Hugh’s also said that it was up to students to decide whether government guidance would allow them to return home. St Hugh’s added “College is not in a position to provide a ruling on whether a student is able to return home”.

Guidance from the government provides examples of “reasonable excuses” to travel, which include work, meeting others for care purposes, and “essential activities” such as accessing shops. There are also “further reasonable excuses.”

Cherwell approached Jon Heath, a partner at Levin’s Law, to explain how the exceptions applied to students. “Ideally, students would be able to rely on one or more named exceptions [from the guidance], because this is more certain than hoping that a police officer (who may decide to issue a fixed penalty notice) or magistrates’ court will accept an unspecified excuse as reasonable.”

Mr Heath added: “Students who suffer from mental illnesses such as depression may be able to rely on the exception ‘to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm’, though we think the authorities will be particularly alert to the risk of abuse of this exception. We would not recommend that students rely on it unless they have a documented history of illness, and it would be advisable to obtain a supportive doctor’s note.”

Students also raised concerns about having to pay residency fees over the vacation. According to policies seen by Cherwell, most colleges are charging rent at normal rates, albeit with various forms of financial assistance available.

Mansfield has reduced vacation rent from £17.38 per night to £8.69. Some students have been granted free vacation residence from the Senior Tutor, and finalists have access to 10 days of free residence.

Mr Heath told Cherwell: “returning home for the vacation in order to avoid such extra charges is likely to amount to a reasonable excuse, particularly given the precarious state of most students’ finances. We [Levin’s Law] emphasise that this is only our opinion and will remain so unless or until a case comes before the courts, so students should be mindful of the risk that a police officer or a court may reach a different conclusion.”

Mr Heath added that although Colleges did not have the power to force students to stay, they could penalise students who left. “Colleges and universities invariably have broad powers to discipline students for conduct which, while lawful, is undesirable in their eyes…We would like all universities and colleges to commit to not disciplining students for breaches of coronavirus restrictions if the student would have a sound defence in law to a criminal charge or can show that they believed in good faith that they had such a defence, even if that proves to be mistaken.”

Levin’s Law has offered to “correspond with colleges free of charge on behalf of any affected student”.

Mansfield told Cherwell: “Colleges will support students already in residence to stay in Oxford in order to comply with the guidance if necessary. It is up to each student to decide whether they feel the guidance allows them to travel home for an Easter break.”

Current guidance from the University states that students should remain in their University accommodation unless an exemption applies. The University guidance continues: “It is possible the guidance may change around 29 March, as part of the next stage of the Government’s easing of restrictions. If this is the case, we will inform you as soon as we can.”

Further information about the vacation and returning to Oxford can be found here.

Image: WolfBlur via pixabay.com

Winners of Oxford’s Beyond Boundaries competition announced

0

The winners

The competition was developed to increase the inclusion and visibility of Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic scientists and mathematicians and involves students creating art based on the profiles of six BAME researchers from STEM departments at the University of Oxford. There were 215 entries from school pupils in Oxfordshire.

Winners were selected from each year group by a panel of judges. One of the winners was Bethany Atherton, whose entry drew from the profile of Acheampong (Aché) Atta-Boateng and his research on bees and the pollination of cacao flowers.

Atherton said in a statement included in the University’s announcement: “Winning this feels absolutely amazing. I love to draw and spend most of my time doing this. To be able to include a strong message in my drawings that others will now see, makes it even more exciting. My grandparents keep bees and so Aché Atta-Boateng’s research about pollination jumped out at me, as this is a topic that is very close to my heart.”

Winners of this competition receive an opportunity to have their work displayed in the upcoming Beyond Boundaries exhibition in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History and are awarded £100. Runners up in each year category received £50.

The competition was noted in the university’s Diversity Awards 2020 for raising awareness of diversity in scientific research.  Daisy Hung, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Manager, MPLS Division, Oxford University, said: “It was a great opportunity for us to highlight the incredible researchers of colour in the Division and to show young people that they can be scientists too.”

Emmanuelle Dankwa, one of the researchers whose profiles were featured in the competition, also highlighted how she learnt from the experience, saying: “Participating in Beyond Boundaries has not only helped me think more deeply about the ways in which I communicate my research to non-experts, but has also afforded me the wonderful privilege to share my story to inspire a young person out there to aspire to careers in STEM.”

Entries to the competition can be viewed on the Beyond Boundaries website.

University delays foundation year rollout

0

Oxford University has delayed the implementation of “Foundation Oxford”, which will offer students with high academic potential a place on a one-year pre-degree course. This initiative is based on the Foundation Year programme that has already been in place at Lady Margaret Hall since 2016. The University announced this delay at the end of January.

The University announced its plans to launch “Foundation Oxford” in 2019, with the timeline for the uni-wide foundation year to be in place by 2022. However, Oxford University has since said this will be delayed until 2023.

The initial announcement stated this programme “will be offered to state school students from less advantaged areas and who have also experienced personnel disadvantage or a severely disrupted education. Eligible students could include refugees, children in care or those who are themselves carers or estranged from their families… Those who pass the course will then progress to undergraduate study at Oxford.” Once the initiative is up and running, it is expected that the programme will support up to 50 students every year across selected subjects. 

Cambridge University also announced a new foundation year program for students, with up to 50 Foundation Year students to arrive in the programme’s first intake in October 2022. 

Alan Rusbridger, Principal of LMH said to Cherwell: “We’re naturally disappointed that the start of Foundation Oxford has slipped a year. This programme builds on the pioneering work at LMH, which itself is based on 20 years of experience at Trinity College Dublin. 

It’s heartening that Cambridge University will launch its own Foundation year scheme in 2022 and we have given them all the help we can. We are also reassured by Oxford’s promise that it is still determined to launch Foundation Oxford in 2023. We are currently recruiting a 6th cohort for the continuing LMH programme – and very much hope to continue our own scheme through to 2023.”

This programme was announced alongside the other access initiative Opportunity Oxford that helps to prepare talented UK offer holders from under-represented backgrounds for successful student careers at our university: “Under the programme, selected Oxford offer-holders participate in an academic bridging programme which supports them in their transition from school or college to our university.”

David Lammy, the MP who has been a prominent critic of Oxbridge admissions for disadvantaged and minority ethnic students, said the new foundation year was “a major step forward.” He went on to further state “These changes continue to allow Oxford’s 38 autonomous colleges enormous discretion over how seriously to take access. For true systemic change to be achieved, admissions should be centralised and contextual data should be used at every stage in the admissions process.”

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the University has taken the difficult decision that the first year of its Foundation Oxford access scheme will be 2023, rather than 2022 as originally planned. Foundation Oxford remains a keystone of our ambitions to admit more state school students from underrepresented backgrounds, along with the successfully launched Opportunity Oxford bridging scheme.

“Now in its second year, we have just made 167 Opportunity Oxford offers to students and the University remains on track to meet its targets for admitting students from more disadvantaged backgrounds. We are increasing the academic support we provide to students impacted by the pandemic, which has highlighted educational inequalities. We are also continuing the development work on the Foundation Oxford course and will announce more details in due course.

“Opportunity Oxford builds on the success of a bridging programme at University College, while Foundation Oxford has grown out of a five-year pioneering trial at Lady Margaret Hall (LMH). Nearly 50 students from under-represented backgrounds have been admitted for the LMH Foundation Year. The very first student to graduate from the scheme last year obtained a first-class honours degree in music. We hope that the Lady Margaret Hall programme may be extended for a further year to continue to develop learning and to share experience before the launch of the University-wide programme.”

Image Credit: Herbi1922/CC BY-SA 4.0

07/03/21, 11:56 – this article was edited to include a comment from the University.

Citizen scientists study polar bears with Oxford researchers

0

Oxford University scientists are working alongside a group of Canadian researchers to involve citizen volunteers in a project which aims to examine polar bear behaviour. Utilising 10 years worth of images volunteers will assess a series of photos which will reveal trends in polar bear behaviour. 

The project is the first of its kind and hopes to broaden current knowledge on polar bear behaviour. When it began in 2011 the primary aim was to answer whether the creation of field camps had worked to attract or repel polar bears. The aims of the project have now expanded in scope and hope to answer important questions including: What drives polar bears to visit human infrastructure or activity? Do observations of polar bears change over time?

The project runs on Zooniverse, a platform for citizen science, hosting over 2 million volunteers who assist researchers in analysing and organising data. The Zooniverse website shows that there are currently 1358 volunteers supporting the research. The Arctic Bears project asks these volunteers to study batches of photos alongside a field guide. The volunteers provide the researchers with information on the number of bears or cubs, their genders, and multiple other factors. There are five trail cameras installed at three different field camps, as well as another eight located at the Churchill Northern Studies Centre. These cameras have captured over 600 different polar bears. Whilst all the cameras are located in Wapusk National Park in northern Manitoba, the sites are almost 200 kilometres apart which ensures the data provides information on varying environments.

The unique approach taken by the Arctic Bears Project carries many benefits. The process is very efficient and without the support of volunteers the labour intensive work could take years for the researchers to complete. Creating ‘citizen scientists’ also encourages active participation from those who would otherwise be detached from the process. Individuals are able to become more involved as well as gain a greater understanding of the issues. Finally the process is non-invasive, meaning it is not stressful for the animals being studied. 

One of the project’s most notable discoveries so far is capturing black bears, grizzly bears, and polar bears living together for the first time. The cameras have also confirmed the pattern of polar bears moving from the sea to land in Summer and Autumn, when the ice melts.

Image: Hans-Juergen Mager via unsplash.com

Xie elected Oxford Union president, BRIDGE slate wins all major positions

Chengkai Xie has been elected president of the Oxford Union for Michaelmas 2021, winning 520 first preferences or 72.6% of the vote. Xie was the Librarian of the Oxford Union in Hilary 2021.

The Bridge slate has also won all other major positions:

Librarian: Michael-Akolade Ayodeji, Bridge, with 72.4% of the vote.

Treasurer: Arjun Bhardwaj, Bridge, with 79.9% of the vote.

Secretary: Larissa P. Sidarto, with 79.9% of the vote.

This marks a victory for the BRIDGE slate which ran unopposed for almost all major positions this term and pledged to democratise events (with speaker, debate and Q&A suggestions), along with setting up Foundation Year memberships and tiered-access for the Union. They also committed to platforming marginalised voices and beginning a state school outreach programme.

ALTERNATIVE pledged to “arrange a charity event for homelessness in Oxford”, host more speakers to discuss human rights and to “make sure everyone reads the standing orders and understands them”.

PROGRESS promised to host a panel on the future of the African Union, improve the speaker diversity ratio, reduce membership fees and guarantee access member committee interviews.

This marks the third time the Union has held elections online. 

Ayesha Khan (BRIDGE), Eu Ro Wang (BRIDGE), Rachel Ojo (PROGRESS), Ahmad Nawaz (ALTERNATIVE) and William Feasey (BRIDGE) have been elected to the Standing Committee.

Alfred Dry (BRIDGE), Olya Kotova (PROGRESS), Shariq Haidery (ALTERNATIVE), Arpan Kumar De, Kate Zhu (PROGRESS), Naman Gupta (PROGRESS), Grace Oddie-James (BRIDGE), Ambika Sehgal (BRIDGE), Declan Nelson (BRIDGE), Charlie Mackintosh (BRIDGE) and Eliza Dean (ALTERNATIVE) have been elected to the Secretary’s Committee.

Image Credit: Barker Evans.

Seen and not heard: the film industry’s troubled relationship with female directors

The film industry has a problem with female directors. 

This should not be too much of a tendentious statement to make given Hollywood’s track record with equality. There is still a glaringly obvious lack of women heading up films, and the fact that Kathryn Bigelow remains to this day the only female recipient of the Academy Award for Best Director is testament to this painfully slow progress.

The issue is inherently rooted in the maxim that women should be seen and not heard. Whilst no-one but the most overtly sexist among us would dare to repeat such a statement in earnest nowadays, it encapsulates the way in which the film industry continues to treat women despite ostensible attempts to level the playing field. When women are in front of the camera, they are very often seen through the male gaze, perhaps as Tarantino’s muse or as a Bond Girl playing out the latest hazily-sketched male fantasy. 

When women dare to direct a film, they are more likely to be listened to if they soften their perspective and do not shake the boat too much. Female directors are viewed as women first and foremost, and then directors.

Women’s stories are often diluted to suit commercial tastes. But this stifling of artistic freedom is not the only issue that female directors face. There is a tendency to view female directed films as one homogeneous block, as if all women view the world through the same narrow lens. It would be absurd to suggest that Michael Bay and Charlie Kaufman somehow have the same directorial vision, just as it is to suggest that Agnès Varda may have something innately in common with Sofia Coppola beyond their womanhood. Yet critics and viewers alike fall into the trap of looking for ever-tenuous links between the artistic vision that binds female directors together and in doing so, become blind to the deliberate ambiguities and contradictions that underpin the vast oeuvres of these directors.

The veneer of softness that critics clumsily paint on female directed films belies the important, and often ignored, critical messages that lie beneath. There are a plethora of female directors creating films that are anything but “soft” or homogeneous. Greta Gerwig’s ​Ladybird presents the raw struggles of teenagehood and the indissoluble bonds between mother and daughter. Emerald Fennell’s ​Promising Young Woman does away with the idea of a “good girl” and presents a revenge narrative that is shot in Barbie pink but doesn’t not lose any of its kick. Céline Sciamma’s ​Portrait of a Lady on Fire deals with the notion of looking and observing in its most artistic sense, shunning the male gaze that has traditionally cast a shadow over the depiction of femininity as an artistic endeavour. These women refuse to be shoehorned into one genre or one set notion of what it means to be a director who just so happens to be a woman.

The problem is that female directors often find themselves in a Catch-22 situation. If they focus on femininity, relationships or the woes of womanhood, their films are accused of being sickeningly saccharine and overly sentimental. If they choose not to focus on these issues, they are accused of having turned their backs on other women and their stories.

When women write action films or war epics, their attempts are seen as nothing more than a pale imitation of anything that a male director could create. When they have a go at directing a rom-com, their films are dismissed as trivial stories that will only interest women (conveniently forgetting about Richard Curtis, the de facto king of the cheesy rom-com.)  Male directors are afforded more opportunities to be taken seriously for the stories that they tell under whichever genre they choose.

There is also a disparity in the way in which the film industry awards and venerates directors. Male directors can bounce back from a few slightly mediocre films or even a box-office flop or two. Fuelled by delusions of grandeur – or even by delusions of adequacy – some male directors ride on the coattails of critical acclaim. In contrast, female directors have to keep proving themselves time after time, film after film, in order to keep their place in the hallowed halls of prestige and critical acclaim. 

Female directors are living proof that all those who identify as a woman should be both seen and heard through a multitude of perspectives, including through the intersection between gender, race, sexuality and class. There is progress being made, slowly but surely, and the inclusion of three female directors in the Golden Globes nominations is welcome news. Female directors from around the world are increasingly getting their voices heard and shouting from the rafters for more equality. Let’s hope that their voices keep getting amplified.

Dip your toe into Schitt’s Creek

0

Schitt’s Creek is a show where the main character talks to her many, many wigs. It is a show which manages to make a storyline about bedwetting genuinely romantic. It is a show that’s set the record for most Emmy wins for a comedy in a single season. It is a show that you need to be watching right now.   

Co-created by Eugene Levy and Dan Levy, who are father and son both on and off screen, Schitt’s Creek begins with the formerly ultra-rich Rose family moving into a motel room in the titular small town, bought by Johnny Rose for his son David as a gag gift (as you do). It delivers on the crude comedy its title promises. The Roses are great at being socialites, but not so great at being good people, or at being a family. The process of them working on these things is really, really funny.

Catherine O’Hara as matriarch Moira Rose is a revelation. Exhibit A: her eccentric accent, which is both a source of laughter and a subject of actual linguistic analyses. Exhibit B: everything she says in that accent, like her nuggets of parental wisdom (“Gossip is the devil’s telephone. Best to just hang up.”) and advice about posting nudes online, (“Never! Never without good lighting!”) 

More than anything, Schitt’s Creek is kind. It’s kind to its characters. As easy it would be to reduce the Roses to caricatures, they are portrayed as human (or at least, as trying their best to be human). They’re relatable (even despite the fact that David, a grown man, thinks that the minimum wage is $45/hour). But the joy of the show doesn’t come from watching the Roses do crazy things and thinking to yourself, “What planet are they from?!” It comes from watching the Roses do crazy things and make mistakes and learn to be kind to eachother, all while staying true to their eccentric selves. Like when Alexis shows up to her brother’s wedding in a wedding dress (“This is not a wedding dress! It’s a white full-length gown!”) and walks him down the aisle, which is simultaneously sweet and also borderline incestuous – a brand of funny that only Schitt’s Creek could pull off.

And the show is, I think, one of those rare gems that is more than just a comedy and is really, actually a WAY OF LIFE. And not in the way that I tell myself The Office is to justify watching it for the millionth time. What Schitt’s Creek does better than any other show on television is make you look at the world with kinder eyes. It blesses us with David and Patrick, the couple at the heart of what is hands-down the best love story on television. And gives us a revolutionarily casual depiction of a community without homophobia. This depiction is meaningful because it doesn’t moralise – it shows us what life could be like. Dan Levy perfectly articulates the magic of this: “If you put something like that (homophobia) out of the equation, you’re saying that… shouldn’t exist.”

If you watch just one episode, it has to be Season 4, Episode 6: “Open Mic.” It starts with Moira finding her co-workers’ sonogram on her desk and responding as any mother/long-time benign neglecter of her children would, by asking, “Who put a picture of a ghost on my desk??” More funny stuff is said and then we get to Patrick, who suggests hosting an open mic night, much to David’s horror. But when Patrick serenades David with Tina Turner’s “The Best”, you can see the mortification on David’s face melting into tenderness, and then David is tearing up and his mother Moira is tearing up and so are you. Schitt’s Creek will win you over. It is, quite simply, the best.

Art by Emma Hewlett