Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 586

REVIEW: The Ruling Class – ‘actualises an eccentric and absurdist sense of humour’

Cesca Echlin
-
0
REVIEW: The Ruling Class – ‘actualises an eccentric and absurdist sense of humour’

Who are the individuals that make up the British ‘elite’? Peter Barnes’ 1968 black comedy The Ruling Class, on at the Burton Taylor Studio until Saturday 18th May, brings into focus a series of eccentric and often outrageous upper-class characters.

Barnes’ play opens with the news that the 13th Earl of Gurney has committed suicide. The Gurney family are left wondering what is to be done with the late Earl’s estate. After reading his will, they come to realise that everything, title and all, is to be left to the Earl’s only son and heir, Jack (Tom Bannon). There’s a slight issue, however: Jack is a paranoid schizophrenic and is convinced he’s Jesus.

Barnes’ writing is unflinchingly satirical and endlessly dense. The new Earl of Gurney is gifted with the best lines, such as “last time I was kissed in a garden it turned out rather awkward.” Barnes doesn’t hesitate to make a joke at every opportunity and no topic, however dark, is out of bounds – “a bishop would never do anything that wasn’t legal,” claims Sir Charles, Jack’s uncle. The humour is cutting, and the characters deliciously caricatured, but laughing at the people onstage is entirely what Barnes wants us to do. Jack’s eventual ability to take his seat in the House of Lords allows Barnes to make a much wider point: the ‘ruling classes’ who lead us are just plain delusional.

One of the strongest elements of Stage Wrong Productions’ The Ruling Class is the outstanding central performance from Tom Bannon. From the pre-set, Bannon was getting laughs out of me – the image of him dancing around jovially in a ballet tutu reminded me of the epic scene in Jim Carrey’s Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. Bannon’s characterization is peppered with notes of absurdity. At one point Claire (Sir Charles’ wife, played by Eleanor Cousins Brown) asks him how he knows he’s God, and he flippantly remarks: “When I pray to him I find I’m talking to myself.” Moreover, Bannon physically commits to the role, leaping and bouncing around the stage with every word, and it really pays off – he is very exciting to watch.

Bannon is backed up by a strong cast. All cast members, as well as the directors Lev Crofts and Eddie Holmes-Milner, should be commended for the actors’ thoroughly well-thought-out performances. Particularly funny were Jack Parkin as the wobbly Bishop and Charlie Wade as the feeble Dinsdale (Sir Charles and Claire’s son).

Towards the end of the play I wasn’t sure if the directors were attempting to shift the play into a more serious gear. If so, I did not feel that the production’s solemnity hit the right notes – although this might just be the fault of the writing. The Ruling Class was at its best when the actors were playing to the audience for laughs.

The production would also have benefitted hugely from having music during transitions, or simply from the tightening of scene changes. At times the blackouts were a bit irregular, and actors could sometimes be heard in the wings. Although these things are perhaps pedantic, I often find that technical details like these take great performances to the next level.

It is always a delight to see comedy in Oxford, and The Ruling Class actualises an eccentric and absurdist sense of humour with great performances.

Oxford University Hospitals staffing woes persist

Sam Millward
-
0
Oxford University Hospitals staffing woes persist

The Oxford University Hospitals trust has announced this week that it spent £18m on agency staff this fiscal year, £1.3m more than the limit imposed by the NHS.

In this same period, the trust saw a marked increase in the turnover of EU nurse positions. A report by OUH stated: “NHS Improvement set the Trust a spend on agency ceiling for 2018/19 of £16.7m.

“The expenditure on agency staff for the full year was £18.0m, due to the spend on staff required to maintain operational capacity to meet performance standards.”

Bruno Holthof, Chief Executive of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said: “Patient safety is a key priority for us at the Trust, and we often recruit agency staff in order to provide the safest care possible, and meet performance standards.

“We took the decision as part of our people strategy to spend more on temporary staff in 2018/19 while we recruit substantive staff to provide a sustainable service to our patients.

“We introduced a number of incentive schemes over the peak winter months to increase our staffing capacity.  This meant we could meet patient demand for urgent and elective care by opening up as many beds as possible, and running additional theatre sessions. 

“While this increased our expenditure for 2018/19, we are now in a position to use more of our staff, and therefore spend less on agency workers.  As a Trust, we will continue to improve staff retention and grow the number of substantive staff – during 2018/19, there was a steady increase of over 150 substantive staff.

“However, Bank and agency staff will continue to be an important part of our workforce, giving us flexibility to cope with the level and mix of patient care which we need to provide throughout the year, especially during the winter period when operational pressures are greatest.  Wherever possible we prioritise offering additional hours to Bank staff – who usually already work at the Trust – over external agency staff.

The increased use of staff contracted through agencies coincides with “significant” and “unexpected” rise in the number of EU nurses, in particular those of Spanish origin, resigning their posts in March.

Changes to employment and qualification law in Spain may mean that work done in the UK will become non-transferable experience. The change would be a result of Brexit fallout, as no replacement deal has yet been agreed between the UK and Spain to resolve the issue.

An OUH report stated: “March has seen a significant rise in band 5 turnover… a break down by nationality is included and indicates a high number from within the EU and in particular Spain.”

MP Layla Moran, speaking on the 9th May, said: “It is deeply upsetting to hear that hard-working EU staff members are leaving the NHS in droves in Oxfordshire – the Conservatives should be ashamed.

“One of our country’s most important institutions should be open and welcoming, and this Brexit uncertainty is leading to alarming levels of staff turnover.

“Brexit is completely unsustainable for our NHS and unfair on vital staff members who come from neighbouring countries to serve the UK’s public sector. This reason among many others is exactly why I am campaigning to stop Brexit.”

An OUH spokesperson said, when speaking to Cherwell “EU staff are a long-standing and crucial part of our workforce.

“Many nurses come here to develop their skills and progress their careers because of the breadth of opportunity within Oxford University Hospitals and we continue to attract European nurses and nursing assistants.

“While Brexit does create some uncertainty, current guidance is that EU staff already working here will be able to continue to live and work in the country.

“Oxford University Hospitals has always attracted staff from across the world, including the EU, and we hope it will continue to do so.”

OUH has the highest percentage of EU nurses outside of London, but has seen a distinct drop in hiring rates since the 2016 vote on EU exit.

Although not specific to the Oxford University Hospitals trust, shortages of registered nurses have been reported across the NHS. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust will temporarily close its 12 bed City Community Hospital at the end of this month, due to staff shortages. Half of all nursing posts have been unfilled since 206, with two thirds of posts due to be vacant by the end of the month.

A quarter-century of inequality in Oxford’s exams

Liam OConnor
-
0
A quarter-century of inequality in Oxford’s exams

More students are earning first and upper second class degrees than ever before, but attainment gaps in gender, race, and disability persist, a Cherwell investigation has found.

The data, which spans from 1990 to 2017, provides the most detailed picture of Oxford’s degree-awarding trends that has ever been made public.

The rate at which first class degrees are earned has doubled in the past quarter century, whilst lower seconds and thirds have dropped to a fifth of their 1990 levels.

More students received firsts than lower seconds for the first time in 1998, a trend which has since continued. Upper seconds peaked at 65 percent in 2005 but have since declined to 60 percent.

Cherwell tracked the progress of the eleven departments with over 75 students. Humanities departments experienced the greatest increase in firsts and upper-seconds followed by the social sciences.

Historians are 178 percent more likely to score a first today than their predecessors in 1990. Although chemists now have a 127 percent higher chance of earning a first, upper seconds have become 20 percent less common.

Since the university first started reporting degrees by academic division in 2008, Mathematical, Physical, and Life Science (MPLS) students have consistently garnered the highest proportion of firsts, ranging between 36 percent and 39 percent. They also received two to three times as many lower seconds and thirds as the other divisions.

Social Science students earned relatively few firsts and were the most likely to earn upper seconds. MPLS’s exam scores have changed little in the past decade. But the percentage of students who received firsts and upper seconds in other divisions has been rising.

In December, the Office of Students warned universities to curb “spiralling grade inflation.”

Speaking to Cherwell, SU Vice President of Access & Academic Affairs Lucas Bertholdi Saad said: “Over the past 30 years, student outcomes at Oxford have been improving, and they’ve been improving in the [higher education] sector as a whole as well.

“People talk about ‘grade inflation.’ I think that’s not the right way of characterizing this. I think what’s happening is that we’re getting better teaching. We know more about teaching and how students learn.

“Application rates to Oxford have shot up, and Oxford has become a much more competitive place. So, it doesn’t surprise me that we’re getting better students through the doors.”

Gender

The data reveals that a gender gap in degree awards has persisted at the aggregate level, and even increased in half of Oxford’s academic divisions.

Overall, women were 22 percent less likely to earn first class degrees than men during 2006- 2017 despite a general upward trend for both genders. But they are 17 percent more likely to earn an upper second.

In 2011, MPLS women lagged behind their male classmates in firsts by 9 percent. That gap has since widened to 16 percent. The differences in the Humanities also grew — from 6 percent to 9 percent. Minor disparities in Medical Sciences and Social Sciences have diminished in recent years.

Skewed gender ratios may partly explain the presence or lack of an attainment gap in the divisions. MPLS has about two men for every woman, while Medical Sciences is the opposite.

Women won upper seconds at higher rates than men in every division. Lower seconds are awarded in approximately equal proportions with the main disparities arising between subjects rather than gender.

The Higher Education Statistics Agency reported last year that female students across the U.K out-competed men in obtaining firsts and upper seconds.

“I’m a bit worried about the gender degree awarding gap,” Bertholdi-Saad said. “Women come into Oxford with higher A-level grades, and they leave with worse degrees. Why is that, and why does it only happen here? I don’t think we’ve adequately addressed that.”

This week, the SU Council unanimously approved its submission to the Oxford Access and Participation Plan, which emphasizes the need to tackle the gender attainment gap.

Race

On average, black students substantially trailed students of every other race in receiving firsts during the period 2008-2017. They were 13-91 percent less likely to earn a first than white students, though regularly garnered a higher proportion of upper seconds.

Chinese students received upper seconds at rates 8-39 percent lower than white students in all but one year. The rest of the students had similar performances in this degree class.

Chinese, Asian, and black students received lower seconds at rates two to four times higher than white students.

“Race is a problem at almost every university,” Bertholdi-Saad said. “But I think we can do more to decolonize our university and to build a more inclusive curriculum.”

Disability

Disabled students face a growing divide with their peers. Although they briefly performed on par with non-disabled students in 2011, the gap has since grown to 8 percent.

In upper seconds, disabled and non-disabled students experienced a downward trend in which numbers have nearly converged. But disabled students were twice as likely to receive a lower second than their peers for multiple exams throughout the past decade.

Bertholdi-Saad commented: “There are some attainment gaps that are easier to solve. Disabilities is one of them.

“There are lots of cases where students just don’t get to the lectures because they don’t have the equipment there for them or they are given recorded lectures but it’s not recorded for them. We have a common framework in the university around disability. It’s not followed well enough.”

“I think that if we actually did some of the things we said we’d do for disabled students — like giving them access to their lectures, making sure that they have extensions on book deals in the libraries when they need them — we’d see some of that disability attainment gap disappear.”

Christ Church JCR rejects motion to abolish scholars’ ballot privilege

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
Christ Church JCR rejects motion to abolish scholars’ ballot privilege

Christ Church’s JCR has voted against abolishing the scholar and exhibitioner ballot privilege.

While the motion gained majority support, it did not receive the 2/3 of votes needed to pass.

Christ Church’s current policy is for those who get a scholarship or exhibition in their first year to get first choice of rooms via a separate ballot in their 3rd year.

The motion was brought forward by James Mulvey, and seconded by Rebecca Rogers.

According to the motion: “Generally speaking, due to structural education inequalities that may not balance out by the end of first year, privately educated students are more likely to achieve a Scholarship than state educated students.

“There is no standardised procedure for awarding Exhibitions across subjects – year-on-year the same subjects award several Exhibitions while others award none.”

They argued that: “The quality of one’s final years of accommodation should not be influenced by results achieved in first year or via the non-standardised awarding of Exhibitions.

“Arbitrary factors such as educational background and subject choice should not continue to influence one’s quality of accommodation at Christ Church.

“Hard work should continue to be rewarded, but via the existing system of financial reward and the Scholar’s Gown which does not recognise high achievement at the expense of others.”

There are very few colleges which still have ballot privileges for scholars and exhibitioners. Hertford was the most recent college to abolish the system.

James Mulvey, who brought the motion to the JCR, said: “Opposition to the motion focused on the role of the Scholars’ room ballot bump as an incentive for hard work. Clearly this incentive is not working, as Christ Church has maintained a mediocre position on the Norrington Table in recent years.

“In fact, Christ Church is one of the only colleges across Oxford that gives preferential treatment to Scholars and Exhibitioners when it comes to room selection. If there is progressive change on this front in Oxford, it is clear that Christ Church is falling well behind.

“Christ Church often has a negative image, one that is characterized as archaic, static and elitist. I have fortunately found this inaccurate to a large extent from my time here. However, on this important issue of Scholar and Exhibitioner ballot privilege, we are on the wrong side of progress I believe, and the majority of voting JCR members agreed.

“This change has commanded the majority of our JCR and yet college staff are against it. Christ Church can only exorcise these often-unfair labels if it embraces reform and engages with student, otherwise as it stands it will be condemned to living in the past.”

St Hugh’s JCR rejects motion to create Liaison Officer for Oxford Living Wage

Charlotte Moberly
-
0
St Hugh’s JCR rejects motion to create Liaison Officer for Oxford Living Wage

St Hugh’s College JCR has rejected a motion to create a Liaison Officer “to liaise with college staff and help promote the Living Wage in college”.

St Hugh’s College currently pays its scouts £9 per hour, below the Oxford Living Wage currently set at £10.02 per hour.

The motion also called for the JCR “to launch a campaign for the Oxford Living Wage at St Hugh’s and seek to utilise creative methods to pressure college into improving pay conditions for staff.”

The Oxford Living Wage, set by the City Council, is set at a higher rate than the National Living Wage to reflect the higher costs of living in Oxford.

The motion argued that “Scouts, housekeepers and everyone else employed by St. Hugh’s ought to be paid at least the Oxford living wage.

“The JCR should support and stand in solidarity with workers at St Hugh’s.

“The JCR should seek to organise, lobby and take whatever action necessary to improve the wages of the workers at St. Hugh’s.

“A spirit of solidarity and activism among the JCR will be beneficial for members of the college.”

The motion was proposed by Joe Higton, a finalist at the college. After an online vote, it was rejected by 39 votes to 26.

The motion also called for St Hugh’s JCR “to launch a campaign for the Oxford Living Wage at St Hugh’s and seek to utilise creative methods to pressure college into improving pay conditions for staff.”

One of the concerns raised during the JCR discussion of the motion was that the role of a JCR Officer is to represent the student body and to be elected by those that they were representing, which would not be possible in this case.

Higton suggested that this motion was more about raising awareness, so he was not sure what the drawback of this would be.

The JCR President also argued that the motion appeared to be “quite patronising”. However, Higton maintained that the motion was “simply backing staff members in line with the Living Wage Campaign.”

In the JCR meeting, it was suggested that the person sitting on College’s committees is best placed to raise this issue, and that students could not fulfil this.

The Secretary pointed out the potential for conflicts of interest between JCR and the Liaison Officer in terms of student rent levels.

According to the minutes of the meeting, “college have stressed staff wages as a key argument for proposed rent raises in the past and during this year’s rent negotiation.”

Higton told Cherwell: “I think the motion didn’t pass mainly because the committee opposed it, but I also think I ought to have prepared the motion better and anticipated the pushback – I didn’t expect anyone to oppose it because I think it seems fairly straightforwardly good.

“I think it’s disappointing it didn’t pass, and it shows that sometimes people become too concerned with the technicalities and inner workings of JCR business rather than wider goals.”

Higton explained that, although as a finalist he does not have the time to set up an Oxford Living Wage campaign at the college himself, “the idea was that this would create some kind of momentum or inertia in that direction for other people to take it on.”

Oxford City Council recently launched a new Oxford Living Wage Accreditation Scheme.

It is the minimum which the council pays its staff and agency workers.

The Council also expects all suppliers with contracts over £100,000 to pay the Oxford Living Wage to their staff and subcontractors.

While 17 of Oxford’s 38 colleges and Oxford University are signed up to pay the Real Living Wage of £9.00 per hour, currently only two Oxford colleges and PPHs, Blackfriars College and Campion Hall, pay the Oxford Living Wage – a separate wage rate due to the substantially higher costs of living in Oxford.

Oxford was recently classed the least affordable city in the UK, with average weekly rental prices at £121.15, much higher than the national average of £87.68.

Other colleges have also launched campaigns to pay their staff the Oxford Living Wage. St Hilda’s students began a campaign in February, while Wolfson students are also calling for the college to raise staff pay.

Recently, Labour Councillor Martyn Rush told Cherwell that these campaigns made him “hopeful of progress on these fronts soon.”

This comes after Susan Brown, the Leader of Oxford City Council, wrote to the wealthiest Oxford University colleges to ask if they could pay the Oxford Living Wage to their lowest-earning staff.

Brown called the low number of colleges paying the Oxford Living Wage to all staff “disgusting.”

Oxford SU currently operates an Oxford Living Wage Campaign, which has been arguing for colleges to pay all staff the recommended by the council as a minimum.

College crime hotspots revealed

Ben van der Merwe
-
0
College crime hotspots revealed

Three Oxford colleges experienced more than 250 crimes in their vicinity in the first three months of the year, a Cherwell analysis of police data has found.

Of all crimes between January and March for which a location was recorded, and which were within 500 metres of any college, 570 occurred closest to St Hilda’s. This includes 159 violent and sexual offences, 61 bicycle thefts, 30 burglaries and six incidents of the possession of a weapon.

Nuffield came a distant second at 282 recorded crimes, while St. Catherine’s came a close third with 267.

St Hilda’s came top for all categories except vehicle crime and ‘theft from the person’, a category which includes mugging and pickpocketing. Nuffield recorded 16 such incidents, while Jesus came second with 11. St. Catherine’s came top for vehicle crime, with 31 incidents.

The most common crimes overall were violence and sexual offences (346), anti-social behaviour (190) and bike theft (185).

Between January and March of this year, here were 61 recorded bike thefts near St Hilda’s, 26 near Nuffield, 22 near Pembroke and 21 near St Catherine’s.

Thefts from the person were most common in the vicinity of Nuffield (16), followed by Jesus (11), St Hilda’s (9) and Queen’s (3).

Six instances of the possession of a weapon occurred near St Hilda’s. Nuffield experienced four such cases, followed by Pembroke and St Catherine’s (both at 2).

The new body movement

Joanna Lonergan
-
0
The new body movement

To throw some numbers at you, research released by Dove, for their ‘Self-Esteem Project’, found that 96% of women in the UK reported feeling anxious about the way they look, compared with 86% in China, 72% in Brazil and 61% in the US. Only 4% of the women in all the countries surveyed would consider themselves ‘beautiful’, and by the time girls reach 17, 78% will be ‘unhappy with their bodies’.

Although the stats are harder to find, men aren’t immune from the problem. A survey of more than 1,000 8-18 year old boys, conducted by the Credos advertising industry thinktank, found that 55% would consider changing their diet to look better and 23% believed there was a ‘perfect male body’. Obviously, this affects all of us. But we already knew that.

Just when we were all beginning to tire of opening Instagram only to scroll through seemingly endless pictures of slim, toned and altogether ‘perfect’ bodies, the ‘Body Positive’ movement erupted onto our screens.

And erupt it did. At the time of writing, typing #bodypositive into Instagram coughs up 9,519,285 posts. Literally millions of people have seemingly embraced the Body Positive message that no matter what shape, size, age, or weight, every body is beautiful.

At its height, the movement no doubt helped innumerable people embrace who they were and what they looked like. As mentioned above, it’s inevitable most of us will struggle with body image at some point in our lives (for a surprising number of us it might even be throughout our lives) and social media only makes this issue worse.

Earlier this year, two researchers from York University in Toronto published a study linking social media to self-perceived body image (Body Image 28, 2019). Commenting on the findings, Mills said, “[Participants] felt worse about their own appearance after looking at social media pages of someone that they perceived to be more attractive than them. Even if they felt bad about themselves before they came into the study, on average, they still felt worse after completing the task”.

So, amidst an overbearing conventional beauty standard, constantly reinforced through the media, which prescribed thin as the ideal, seeing people such as Chessie King, Meghan Jane Crabbe and Sara Puhto post their ‘Instagram vs Reality’ myth-busters really helped people, including me, to recognise that what you see is most certainly not always what you get.

We don’t see the countless outtakes, discarded photos, or time spent editing those perfectly posed bikini photos. Don’t get me wrong, I think this is great. While most of the mainstream media continues its onslaught on the average person’s self-esteem, it’s truly inspiring that this movement has empowered so many people to love their bodies.

But that being said, I do think we’re in danger of allowing ourselves to become too enthralled with, and too caught up in, it. Body Positivity actually originated in the ‘Fat Acceptance’ movement of the 1960s, experiencing a second wave in the 1990s before the advent of social media accelerated its growth and thrust it to the fore of our attentions. This was a period when beauty standards were getting progressively more unrealistic, culminating in where we are now.

In fact, current media ideals are achievable by less than 5% of the population – and that’s only if we’re thinking about weight and size. When we add shape, face, muscle tone etc into the messed-up mix, it’s probably going to be around 1%. 1 percent. Yes, ‘Body Positivity’ set out to alter (even rectify) this, but as it’s grown #bodypositive has become more of a buzzword to attract likes or attention than a focused and effective attack on conventional ideals.

The same flawless, edited and ‘perfect’ women that flounced onto our screens before are still there, but now they’re ‘embracing’ body positivity too, using the hashtag for their gym selfies and clean-eating snaps (Fit Tea anyone?).

Yet again it feels as if those who don’t fit these standards are being alienated from the cause – the cause that was started by them and for them. Interestingly, there’s also a flip side to this. Alongside the insta-beauties who have appropriated #bodypositivity for themselves are the ‘acceptably curvy’ people. People who are around a size 16 and have fat ‘in all the right places’.

Whilst it’s great that these previously marginalised people have found a way to express their self-love, it does leave many feeling that they’re not curvy enough to be body positive. Of course I’m not saying that anyone should be excluded from loving themselves and I’m certainly not implying that slimmer people don’t struggle with body image issues – many of the 96% from Dove’s study will have been an average dress size.

What I am trying to say, however, is that body positivity has become confused with confidence and self-love meaning those who the movement was originally intended to empower are often left on the outside looking in. There’s this new pressure to love ourselves, when for many of us, this is often far from realistic.

So, how can we reclaim the idea that each and every one of us deserve to take up space in the world? How can we really and truly accept ourselves for how we are, granted that we’re healthy and happy? And how can we relieve ourselves of this obsession with what we look like?

Welcome to the stage ‘Body Neutrality’.

It might not be the catchiest heading – it’s certainly not as attractive as ‘Body Positivity’ – and it hasn’t captivated social media in quite the same way (yet) – at the time of writing there are 12,357 posts with #bodyneutrality. But bear with me. It will all make sense.

Basically, Body Neutrality empowers you to embrace yourself as you are, including the bits you don’t like about yourself. Its focus is to avoid self-hate whilst simultaneously alleviating the pressure of having to love your body. The goal is to respect and accept your body for what it is – and that’s it.

Body Neutrality recognises that not everyone is going to love every part of themselves all the time. The reality is that some days you’re going to look in the mirror like ‘F/ck yeah, thank you legs for taking me places, thank you arms for allowing me to reach for the biscuit tin, and thank you stomach for keeping my organs where they should be’, but then there’ll be those days where you stand in front of the very same mirror, focusing on that mole you hate, or the acne scars that suddenly seem so obvious.

We all pick ourselves apart sometimes, and we all have good days and bad days – it’s natural. For people living with eating disorders, body dysmorphia or disabilities, and those who do not identify with the body they were born into, loving their bodies is especially difficult.

Even for the average person, any negative thoughts they may have about their body aren’t going to dissipate immediately upon reading some inspirational Instagram caption. This is simply an unrealistic expectation inherent in the Body Positivity movement, and one that Body Neutrality seeks to dispel.

Embracing Body Neutrality over Body Positivity allows you to experience negative feelings about yourself, but without the pressure that comes with having to be positive all the time. In other words, it’s a middle ground between positivity and negativity – well, it’s neutrality. In its most twisted form, Body Positivity has become commercialised and mediatised.

In terms of the former, so many of these so-called ‘Body Positive’ posts are trying to sell us detox teas, zero calorie noodles or some miracle weight loss potion. Even those you might least suspect – the bigger brands who are seemingly trying to combat the issue with ‘real women’ models or campaigns – are also playing their part. Even Dove, who many will remember being at the forefront of body positivity in the media with their ‘Campaign for Real Beauty’, can be accused of exploiting the movement as a marketing tactic.

The overall perception of women’s bodies was so dire that Dove would get all the credit, and the sales, for simply identifying the problem. Cue a wave of copycat campaigns focusing on the aesthetic and not the issue at heart. It’s no longer expedient for brands to make you hate yourself, so now you must love yourself (and use their products to get yourself there!).

All this might seem incredibly cynical, and maybe it is. But the underlying message in all of this mediatised and commercialised ‘Body Positivity’ is that now, in order to accept your body, others must also accept it. Posting your curves on social media – stretch marks, cellulite and all – is no longer about just you accepting yourself; it’s now about telling others they ought to accept your image too.

When I did my Instagram search for #bodypositive, I had a quick look over the results. In the ‘Top Posts’ section was a picture of a beautifully curvy woman, posing on a sunlounger in a patterned cut-out swimsuit.

Setting aside that she obviously fitted neatly into the ‘acceptably curvy’ category mentioned above, it was the caption and comments on the post which interested me. In her caption, this woman encouraged her followers to accept all the premises of Body Positivity writing, ‘Love yourself today. Love everything about yourself because you are all beautifully and wonderfully made.’ A lovely sentiment, and her followers responded accordingly – the comment section was filled with ‘You look so great’, ‘All that thickness I’m so here for it sis’ and ‘You are so f/cking beautiful’. This woman got a lot of positive feedback about her body, which must have made her feel amazing. But why do we have such an obsession with how we look?

Think about your own Facebook. I know I’m guilty of commenting on how gorgeous someone looks when they upload a new selfie or change their profile picture – it’s just what you do. But does this reinforce our need for others to accept how we look before we can fully accept it ourselves?

Body Neutrality rejects this. Why should anyone else have a say in how you see yourself? It’s your body and you should do what makes you – emphasis on YOU – feel good. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and maybe that’s true, but it should also be in the eye of the beholder. Beauty isn’t about how people perceive you and what’s more, your worth is not defined by your beauty. We alone should be allowed to determine how much our appearance defines us and we alone should be allowed to decide how well we want to conform to societal beauty standards – whether that be ‘conventional’ beauty or that of any social movement.

Asking us to LOVE our bodies simply asks us to focus even more on what is staring back at us in the mirror when in actual fact it really shouldn’t matter so much at all. I mentioned earlier how disabled, trans, people living with eating disorders and other types of people who don’t fit into either the ‘existing’ or the ‘new’ standards can feel excluded from Body Positivity.

But Body Neutrality has the potential to have a real impact on these peoples’ lives. It doesn’t ask for wholehearted adoration of our bodies no matter what, rather it asks us to make peace with them. I want to say again that I am in no way looking to #hate on the Body Positive movement.

I genuinely think it’s an amazing thing which has touched the lives of so many people, helping them to realise that just because they are not a size 6-8 and have ‘wobbly bits’ doesn’t mean they aren’t beautiful too. I simply want to point out the flaws in the movement – the commercialisation, the unrealistic expectations inherent within and the exclusion of certain people.

As I said before, Body Neutrality is still somewhat new and is still finding its place on social media. It is also in no way perfect, having its own flaws (we still can’t seem to find a way to properly include men and their body image issues) but I hope this new movement will go some way to overcoming the mistaken assumption that body positivity equals straightforward body confidence. That’s not how it is or how it should be. We need to realise and accept that everyone has parts of themselves that they don’t like, and that’s totally, completely and wonderfully ok.

Fiddling while the planet burns

Felicity Victoria Graham
-
0
Fiddling while the planet burns

The year is 1960, and Charles Keeling begins his ‘Keeling Curve’, following a prediction in 1959 which stated that CO2 would rise by 25% by the year 2000 with potentially ‘radical’ effects on the climate.

Fast forward to 2019 and, even sixty years later, such vague predictions are still regularly being put forward by the world’s leading scientists. Yet, many doctors are now diagnosing their patients with ‘eco-anxiety’ due to the imminence of the climate crisis, and eco-rebels have taken to the streets. The most recent rebel group, Extinction Rebellion, is one of the most popular revolutionary movements the UK has ever seen. However, it seems that action on the street is still far weaker than words on a sheet.

With more than 20,000 scientific publications each year with key words of ‘climate change’, it is no overstatement to say that climate change has become one of the most over-intellectualised issues of our current world. Whilst I do believe that this renewed focus on climate change is something to be celebrated, over-intellectualisation is by no means a good thing.

Intellectualisation is by definition a defence mechanism we utilise when wishing to revoke emotional stress. We, as students at this university, are extremely prone to falling into the trap of intellectualisation. The emotional turmoil of a break-up or a fall-out with friends may be easily forgotten about by delving into revision, or getting stuck into a good book which combats emotion indirectly. Even staying on to do a Masters’ degree can sometimes act as a sort of intellectualisation; to escape the real world and the prospect of having to find a job, each year thousands of students decide to keep themselves within the relatively comfortable borders of higher education. In all three of these examples there is a common theme; avoidance.

But how is this relevant to climate change? Prior to last week, I had always been proud of myself for committing to my studies of climate change at school, constantly discussing the topic with my friends, and attending the lectures of the Oxford Climate Society regularly whilst at university. Yet, it was one of these very lectures that made me realise that my understanding of climate change, and the narrative I apply to it, was in fact an immoral one.

The lecture I attended was led by Mike Hulme, a Professor of Geography at Cambridge, and the author of the renowned book Why We Disagree About Climate Change. Hulme became a climate sociologist after years of work within the field of climate science, interested in the way humans view the issue of climate change from various different perspectives. In the lecture, he applied the framework of different ‘narratives’; he argued that some may view climate change as a left-wing conspiracy, some as a tale of moral growth, whilst others may even link their narrative to religion. Hulme discussed these variants on the assumption that anyone with a ‘narrative’ was not questioning the actual facts of climate change, and I was intrigued by the framework he was giving this global issue. Yet, whilst sat in this lecture, feeling intrigued and vaguely perplexed, I felt a sudden pang of anxiety at the utter triviality of everything Hulme was saying. Nobody in that room was actually doing anything about the issue at hand.

At this point in the lecture, I had a horrific moment of anagnorisis; I realised that I enjoy learning about climate change. The climate crisis is an issue that combines my love for physical geography and tragic drama into one captivating screenplay; one that I appear to be all too happy to re-watch. Yet, somewhere within my learning about climate change, I seem to have misplaced the most important fact; that this screenplay can’t be re-watched. The finalé is the extinction of the human race and the end of all life on earth.

For years, I have deflected my guilt onto national governments and TNC oil-companies, who laugh their way out of the climate crisis with ineffective, localised schemes, rather than utilising their global platforms to promote large-scale change. But who am I to judge? What have I actually been doing to combat the climate crisis? I have merely been indulging in the intellectual essence of climate change, retreating into the facts and statistics, and, ironically, believing that I have been ‘spreading awareness’ through writing short articles for Cherwell. Now, like national governments and international organisations, I am increasingly beginning to realise that this simply won’t do anymore. I must break out of the cycle of over-intellectualisation and remind myself of the reality of the tragedy that is about to ensue.

Such a change of heart, and indeed of mind, also needs to occur within Oxford. The University continues to be an important research centre within the global effort to tackle climate change, yet its findings often simply state facts, and show no interest in actual involvement with mitigation and adaptation methods. The University and its findings demonstrate an unquestionable example of over-intellectualisation; our scientists work with the issue of climate change, yet are entirely detached from the direct emotional and physical consequences that this issue might bring. Scholars such as Mike Hulme are no longer relevant in the discussion of climate change – we need action, and we need it immediately.

Love will tear us apart

Jamie Johnson and Helena Peacock
-
0
Love will tear us apart

Following Georgia limiting abortion to the first six weeks, in effect making it illegal, Alyssa Milano has called for women to participate in a sex strike. The actress and #MeToo activist tweeted “Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy”. Should women join this strike, or are its effect more damaging than helpful for their cause?

Yes: Jamie Johnson

We should not understate the significance of recent developments in Georgia. American lawmakers have found and successfully implemented a work-around to Roe v. Wade, the main protection of women’s choice in America since the 1970s. Measures to decrease the number of weeks after which abortion becomes illegal to six is an effective ban for many women.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez noted this week that six weeks amounts to a full menstrual cycle plus two weeks. Many women will pass the threshold without even knowing they’re pregnant. This is an assault on the rights and dignity of women that comes as part of a broader problem. The problem of having a man like Donald Trump as president. The problem of having abuse perpetrated systematically by men in positions of power. The problems of limited freedom and unlimited violence that regularly cause women misery across the world.

The potential solutions to this are a constant talking point whenever women’s rights are threatened. Potential legal changes, potential changes in the workplace or even in our political systems themselves are regularly proposed, and of course are often valuable. But the solution proposed by Alyssa Milano is a novel one, and at least in principle worth considering. She argues that ‘until women have legal control of our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy’.

This so-called ‘sex strike’ seems radical, but the principle behind it is a sound one. Men have no right to sex, to use a women’s body in any way and so in that sense there is every right to act this way. Moreover, men in general bear some collective responsibility for these laws; not only are men disproportionately responsible for making these laws, but for voting in the conservative lawmakers who push them.

But more fundamentally, political constraints of this kind which are regularly placed on women are only ever the consequence of patriarchal structures all men are, to a greater or less extent, complicit in. The ‘sex strike’ is, on the most basic level, a universal punishment and potential vector for change. But more than that, it could function as a symbol of change, of the power women have even in societies still dominated by men.

And of course, the practical implications of this kind of shift being adopted widely are hard to predict. The coverage would likely be negative in many instances. Moreover, the increasing trend towards political polarisation within romantic relationships, which in other words means conservative women are more likely to date conservative men, means that the actual impact might be limited. But in reality, of course, a symbol needn’t alter views all on its own – the main problem in modern day America, as in many places, is one of awareness.

All too often, we turn a blind eye to the suffering of women and the consequences they face at the hands of ill thought out or straightforwardly cruel changes in our political system. If this strike can address that wrong, even if it’s only partially, that is worthwhile.

No: Helena Peacock

It was in an ancient Greek comedy, written almost two and a half thousand years ago, that Aristophanes’ Lysistrata encouraged the women of the Greek city states to renounce all sexual pleasure until the men ended the bloody conflict of the Peloponnesian War. The women were frustrated by decisions being made without their contribution, frustrated that their voices were not being heard. In May of this year, Georgia became the sixth U.S. state to sign a ‘heartbeat’ bill into law which effectively banned abortion outright. The response, surprisingly, recalled that of the ancient Athenian woman, with actor Alyssa Milano assuming centre stage and proposing a sex strike of her own: ‘Until women have legal control over our own bodies we just cannot risk pregnancy’ she wrote, ‘join me by not having sex’.

Milano indirectly invoked Lysistrata’s ancient actions, but she does not, it appears, acknowledge any problem with utilising literally ancient practices, borrowed from societies in which women’s voices and actions outside their roles as domestic and sexual objects were, undeniably, deemed irrelevant. However well meaning, she inadvertently recalls a time when such reduction was unapologetically commonplace, and subscribes to the misogynistic idea that a woman’s contribution to society must be purely sexual. She demands respect, but only for a woman’s sexual capabilities. The person, the voice, is ignored. The strike fails to recognise that our power is not one derived from or confined to our reproductive organs.

Suggesting that women exist solely to engender sexual pleasure in men, the sex strike demands that we reclaim control of our bodies, while simultaneously refusing to see that part of that control should encompass sexual autonomy. Sex is framed as something to which women are subjected. Such characterisation is demeaning to both parties, and structures sexual engagement within a dangerously heteronormative framework.

Feminist activists have long fought, and continue to fight, for the acknowledgement that sex does not exist solely for male pleasure and women can be and want to be active participants in sex. They have been able to rewrite the false narrative that men are like the desperate chorus of Aristophanes’ comedy, baying at the gates of the Acropolis, threatening to raze it to the ground if their needs are not satisfied. Such a victory should not be so easily relinquished.

So yes: reclaim our legislatures from the men who dominate them and who seek to tear our hard won liberties from us, reclaim the bodies upon which they infringe, reclaim our right to choose – but not like this.

Alyssa Milano knows that ‘the stakes are never higher than right now’, but she must utilise the privilege of her position and her platform to transcend the superficial and enact genuine change, to protest, to demonstrate, and even to strike, but not to tell women to refrain from having sex until abortion laws are changed. She must demand that those in power transform the stage on which we are forced to perform. It is nonsensical to sacrifice autonomy of one kind in order to gain another; we deserve both.

Trinity’s Welfare Turmoil

Amelia Horn
-
0
Trinity’s Welfare Turmoil

Serious concerns have been expressed by Trinity students about the performance of the College’s welfare provisions in Michaelmas, according to survey results obtained by Cherwell.

An emergency JCR meeting called just days after the survey was published led to the College launching an independent review into their welfare provision. A new member of the welfare team was also appointed to help improve the college’s welfare capacity to deal with welfare concerns.

The minutes of the meeting record how: “[the JCR Secretary] emphasised how JCR members can share their concerns about either the temporary measure or the longer-term review of the welfare system with the Exec Committee and the Welfare Reps, who will respect confidentiality.

“It was also emphasised how this temporary measure is by no means all that is being done to reform the Trinity welfare system – and the review will help to usher in further changes for the new academic year.”

On 29th January 2019 an Emergency JCR Meeting was called in which the results of the survey were discussed, having been sent out to JCR members via email. The survey was a volunteer sample of 93 members of the JCR. It was made clear that because of this: “the figures should not be taken to be a completely accurate representation of the JCR at large, however they shall give an indication of general feeling on certain key issues.”

One section of the survey asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “Trinity is a place that cares about its students’ welfare.” The results concluded: “Out of the 93 responses, 30 students either disagreed or slightly disagreed, with a further 13 having no clear opinion on the matter, suggesting that nearly half of all JCR members do not feel that Trinity is a college that strongly cares about its students’ welfare. This is particularly striking given that only 16 students fully agreed with the statement.”

When asked “How confident would you feel approaching a college staff member about a mental health issue?” half of students said they were not confident, rating the college either one or two on a scale of one to five. Only three students gave a rating of five. In contrast, for confidence in approaching a JCR peer supporter about a mental health issues the average response was a 3.2.

Another question asked “If you have approached a college staff member about a mental health issue, how satisfied were you with the way the issue was dealt with?”. In response to this, 9 out of 31 students said that they would rate their satisfaction as a 1. On the other hand, none of the 19 students who responded rated their encounter with JCR welfare representative peer supporters as a one.

A section on sexual harassment asked respondents whether they thought there was a clear way of reporting harassment issues in college. Only 8.8% of those who answered gave a response of “yes”, with 34.1% answering “no”. Asked whether they would feel comfortable doing so, only 10% of people answered “yes”.

The survey also found issues with the JCR’s welfare positions, namely Peer Supporters and Welfare Reps. It stated: “The main barrier to improving the approachability of the JCR Welfare Representatives and Peer Supporters was that as these roles are filled by current students… in turn, JCR members may feel this is a less confidential means for support, due to its greater informality, particularly if you know the peer supporters socially.”

However, it was also emphasised that the lack of an “approachable system” provided by College put a “huge strain” on the JCR welfare team who were not qualified mental health professionals and are “limited in both training and power.”

The minutes record the response of the JCR President: “This is also a really important issue that needs to be recognised and should not be overshadowed by the other findings of this report. He stated that the new Equalities Fellow Maria is extremely willing to deal with these problems and promote a more inclusive community.”

Another student was reported to have “expressed confusion about the way [College President Dame Hilary Boulding] and Anil (then the Equalities Fellow) were surprised by the findings of the report, given that from their experience, a multitude of issues have been reported over the past year. This suggests a major issue with lack of transparency of where information goes from the initial point of contact.”

The JCR Secretary responded by telling attendees that she had been “encouraged” by the meeting with the College President, and stated that “she does seem to really recognise the issue” but has to be “pragmatic” when carrying out changes.

The College President later announced, in an email on 28th February, the Governing Body’s intention to conduct an “independent welfare review” of Trinity’s welfare provision, which will be carried out this term. Deputy Head of the University Counselling Services Maureen Freed was announced to be conducting the review, which was to start at the beginning of Trinity term.

In light of the review, a new member of the welfare team has been appointed. In an email from last week, the President said: “Please note that we have slightly different welfare arrangements in place for this term. In order to create some additional Welfare capacity, we are pleased to welcome Mark Bezerra Speeks who will be available to students on Mondays and Fridays.”

The results of the survey prompted a series of proposed solutions, both in terms of JCR and College welfare. The JCR’s action to be taken included urging College to recognise “the extremely low levels of confidence students generally have in approaching college staff members about mental health issues” and creating a Google Form to allow JCR members to submit anonymous complaints or concerns about specific Peer Supporters, whilst also creating a more thorough screening process for candidates who wish to become Peer Supporters.

In response to the reportedly “shocking” statistics on the handling of sexual harassment, the JCR has urged the College to create the position of at least one “Harassment Officer/Women’s Officer” among the Fellows that was separate from both the Dean and the Welfare Dean. The JCR also stated their intention to “make both Trinity’s stance on and processes of managing claims of sexual harassment clearer to all students” and to “formally increase the number of sexual harassment responders in Trinity.”

The minutes of the emergency meeting state that Trinity College “seemed to take the findings very seriously” and confirmed that various plans which were presented to the Governing Body.

These proposals include a revising of the College safeguarding policy to clarify the route through which students can be referred to outside agencies, a College policy on sharing information to solve confidentiality issues, consideration of the provision of Mental Health First Aid training for key personnel, and a regular review of the College Harassment policy. The results of the survey were also shared with the Dean and Welfare Dean.

A spokesperson for the College told Cherwell: “Ensuring Trinity’s welfare provision is as effective as possible is an important priority for Trinity – the JCR welfare survey raised important concerns around provision, which we are committed to addressing in a positive and decisive way.

“As a next step, the College has engaged the Deputy Head of Counselling at the University to conduct an independent review of welfare at Trinity; she is an experienced organisational consultant who has worked with other colleges on similar reviews.

“It is our goal with this review to get underneath the general impressions of welfare at Trinity and understand specific instances where support was needed and how the college responded. These will be used to develop appropriate responses to the issues raised.

“We are grateful to students for working with us and hope to continue working positively and constructively to ensure our welfare provision is robust in serving all students who need support.”

Last term, as reported by Cherwell, an email on behalf of Trinity’s JCR President was accidentally leaked, revealing sensitive information about welfare to the JCR.

The email stated: “out of 12 people identifying as Black/African/Caribbean/BlackBritish (4) and Mixed/Multi-Ethnic (8) (some people however also said prefer not to say) 9 people said in the survey that they “faced any specific issues or incidents” at Trinity with regards of race/ethnicity and 5 people said that worries/issues about race have a detrimental effect on their mental health.”

Trinity JCR, the Trinity Welfare Dean, and the college’s President were contacted for comment.

1...585586587...2,488Page 586 of 2,488

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