Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 59

Unveiling the Suburban Secrets of Desperate Housewives 

By
Nina Naidu
-
Image Credits: CC BY 2.0 / by William Warby via. Wikimedia Commons

If I were to select only one show on repeat for the rest of my life, there’s no doubt it would be Desperate Housewives. Those who know me understand my absolute obsession with this series. This choice isn’t merely hypothetical; my reality is shaped by a perpetual rewatch of its eight seasons. However, when I express my fervour for the show to others, confusion often ensues. “But isn’t that a reality show?” They ask with raised eyebrows. People frequently mistake Desperate Housewives for the Real Housewives reality TV shows. While the confusion is somewhat understandable, given that the Real Housewives franchise drew inspiration from the former’s success, it’s a complete misrepresentation of the captivating drama that unfolds in the hit early 2000’s mystery show, a series I’ll continue to rave about indefinitely.

Created by Marc Cherry in 2004 and spanning eight seasons until 2012, Desperate Housewives is a comedy-drama that delves into the lives of four suburban housewives residing on the fictional Wisteria Lane after the suicide of Mary-Alice Young. Each harbouring their own secrets, the housewives discover the myriad of deceptive secrets that Mary-Alice left leading up to her death. Every season introduces a new family to the lane, bringing with them a mysterious secret that slowly unravels, ensuring a continuous supply of drama with an expansive cast. No one on Wisteria Lane is immune to the harsh realities that shatter the illusion of the perfect suburban family. 

The ensemble includes the “perfect” domestic housewife Bree Van De Kamp (Marcia Cross), desperate to salvage her marriage with a cheating husband; the ambitious businesswoman Lynette Scavo (Felicity Huffman), eager to re-enter the workforce after years as a stay-at-home mum of four; the former supermodel Gabrielle Solis (Eva Longoria), struggling to adapt to a quiet suburban life; and single, klutzy Susan Mayer (Teri Hatcher), yearning for love. “Desperate” perfectly describes these women, who employ any means necessary to achieve their desires, often leading to conflicts, deception, and fractured relationships (although the show definitely puts every character through the wringer at some point). Packed with scandals, murder, and sex, each episode offers a binge-worthy experience.

Beyond its surface entertainment, Desperate Housewives courageously tackles weighty topics, including alcoholism, suicide, and cancer, approaching them with a maturity that fosters honest conversations about the challenges women face. The show, with its predominantly female cast, places the voices of wives and mothers at the forefront, making it a pivotal force in representing this demographic. Noteworthy performances by Felicity Huffman and Marcia Cross have earned accolades, including nominations and wins at the SAG-Awards and the Golden Globes. The show is also progressive regarding gay relationships, as Marc Cherry cites his own family as inspiration for the Van De Kamps, who eventually come to terms with their son’s sexuality.

Despite its juicy drama and heart-wrenching moments, Desperate Housewives is undeniably a product of its time, with positive and negative aspects. The show, a reflection of the early 2000’s, insensitively engages in harmful societal issues such as pervasive fat-shaming, problematic storylines involving human trafficking, police brutality, and a demonising stance on abortion (allegedly due to restrictions enforced by the ABC channel). On the (somewhat) bright side, though, Felicity Huffman’s infamous 2019 college admissions scandal certainly would have fit within the world of Desperate Housewives.

While some storylines haven’t aged well, the series continues to captivate audiences, boasting a dedicated fanbase that remains active on platforms like Reddit, where controversies are often debated. Streaming services such as Disney+ have also introduced new audiences to the shocking mysteries of Wisteria Lane. 

Although the show has its share of bizarre and poorly aged moments, Desperate Housewives has left an indelible mark on many hearts, both during its original run and now, in the era of streaming. The series’ enduring popularity is evident in the number of fans who still share their favourite moments and characters. If you’re in search of scandalous yet lighthearted comedy interwoven with frantic melodrama, akin to shows like Pretty Little Liars or Grey’s Anatomy, then Desperate Housewives is the perfect choice for you. 

Katie Hopkins speaks at Oxford Union in veganism debate

By
Oliver Adelson
-
Image Credit: Baker Evans via Wikimedia Commons

On Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House Would Go Vegan.” The final count had 112 members voting for the motion and 84 members voting against. Katie Hopkins, whose invitation to the Union has been quite controversial, spoke against the motion, stating “every vegan I know hates themselves.”

Speaking in favour of the motion were Joey Carbstrong, an animal rights activist with over 300 million total Youtube views; Dr. Chidi Ngwaba, a physician specialising in lifestyle medicine and wellness; and Dr. Sailesh Rao, the founder and executive director of Climate Healers. The Oxford Union President Disha Hegde also spoke for the motion.

Opposing the motion were media personality Katie Hopkins and Dr. David Rose, the head of the “Change in Agriculture” research group.  Lincoln college student Manon Hammond and Union President-Elect Hannah Edwards also spoke against the motion.

Katie Hopkins’ invitation to the Union has proved to be the source of much controversy, eliciting condemnations earlier this week from the Oxford SU. A statement released on various SU social media justified the condemnation by stating that Katie Hopkins has propagated divisive rhetoric by “denigrating Islam, blaming crime on multiculturalism, and expressing discriminatory views against various ethnic and social groups.”

Union President Disha Hegde began the case for the proposition by informing the audience that she has been vegan for four years and vegetarian for eight. She argued from personal experience that becoming fully vegan was not “an overnight process” and that voting for the motion did not require already being vegan or being willing to go vegan immediately after the debate. Rather, it simply required a commitment to embarking on the “journey” of veganism.

She stated that the three prongs of the proposition’s case would be “environmentalism, health, and ethics.” 

Throughout her introduction, Hegde referenced previous comments made by opposition speaker Katie Hopkins. She cited Hopkins’ declaration from her past Union appearance: “Short people and vegans. Two things I can’t stand. They must never run this Oxford Union.” Union President Hegde then told the audience that this had been “the perfect sound bite” for her campaign last Hilary Term.

She also addressed Hopkins while rebutting arguments against veganism that invoke animal “unintelligence,” stating: “There are lots of unintelligent humans. But you wouldn’t want to go around eating Piers Morgan or Katie Hopkins.”

President-Elect Hannah Edwards opened the case for the opposition on a light-hearted note, declaring: “There is a spectre haunting Europe. Oat milk lattés.” She continued, telling the audience that people generally do not like vegans and that the House should accordingly vote in opposition. After all: “Being a social pariah is not something this House should subject itself to.”

On the question of ecological damage, she said that she had no environmental expertise but that she nevertheless believed the environmental case for veganism to be overly simplistic. 

The President-Elect closed her speech by urging the audience to think carefully about how it would vote, given the binding effect it might have on future Union policy. If the motion passed, President-Elect Edwards said she “may have to ban Prêt coffees from the building.” 

Continuing the case for the proposition, Dr. Sailesh Rao defined veganism as the philosophy that “seeks to exclude as far as is possible all exploitation of animals.” He echoed the threefold case mentioned in President Hegde’s introduction but stated that his focus would be the environmental case for veganism.

Dr. Rao spoke of the “imminent danger of runaway climate change” and said that meat consumption was a leading cause of ecological destruction. He discussed the inefficiency of meat agriculture, which he said leads farmers to destroy forests only to replace them with grass, drastically decreasing biodiversity. He also claimed that some animals “must eat 39 pounds of plants to produce one pound of meat for humans.”

Dr. David Rose began his speech for the opposition by stating that he “want[ed] to interrogate a little bit more some of the climate points that are made on the vegan side of the debate.” He cited research which purportedly demonstrated that “we don’t actually need to lower meat consumption to stabilise global temperatures.” Throughout his speech, Rose called for more nuance on the environmental side of the debate.

At one point during the debate—when Rose was discussing nutritional discrepancies between cow’s milk and its substitutes—an audience member raised a point of information about alternative sources of nutrition. Before the audience member could finish formulating his question, however, Katie Hopkins interrupted to say: “The point was made by a short person so you don’t need to listen to him.”

The third proposition speaker, Dr. Chidi Ngwaba, focused on the second prong of the “environmentalism, health, ethics” triad. He cited a large survey conducted in China that showed meat and dairy consumption was positively correlated with risk of developing cancer. He told the audience that eating meat was unhealthy and that our bodies instead appear “perfectly designed” to consume fresh fruits and vegetables.

Lincoln third-year Manon Hammond emphasised the impracticality of going vegan, stressing the serious demands a restricted diet makes on people who might not have time to plan their meals. She also spoke of the ostracism she might face if she opted for a vegan diet. Manon told the audience that if she became vegan, it was not impossible that she would be “kicked out of her house.”

She addressed the moral question, dividing it into sub-questions concerning animals, humans, and the environment. According to Manon, on all three counts veganism was not the correct dietary choice.

She was forthright about her dislike of vegan options, claiming that they simply taste bad. Monon declared that eating meat was a “pleasure in [her] life [she was] not willing to give up.”

The final speaker for the proposition, Joey Carbstrong, focused exclusively on moral questions, arguing that “animals pay the ultimate price” when humans choose to eat meat. Throughout his speech, he compared our treatment of animals to atrocities and repeatedly used the phrase “the animal holocaust.”

He claimed that “speciesism” has pernicious consequences and cited Theodor Adorno’s remark that “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they’re only animals.” Carbstrong concluded his speech by telling that audience that it would eventually look back on crimes against animals the way we look back on “slavery, apartheid, and the holocaust.”

Katie Hopkins spoke last in the debate. She began by attacking the final proposition speaker – whom she called “Mr. Holocaust” – for his reporting on animal slaughterhouses: “That’s what vegan people call a hobby… That’s the way he chooses to spend his time, watching animals suffer.”

Her speech was replete with personal attacks against vegans. She claimed that: “Every vegan I know hates themselves” and “death is what happens to you when you’re vegan.” She addressed the vegans at the event, saying “I love you and encourage you to sit together with your miserable little friends who are all short.” 

This was not the only time she mentioned the issue of stature. After claiming that veganism was “a biological deadend” and that men who didn’t eat meat had lower testosterone levels, she declared: “what I need is a massive meat-eating man… with a massive cock.”

There were multiple back-and-forth spats with members of the audience throughout Hopkins’ address, which often elicited a great deal of laughter in the chamber.

Kiss me, kiss me, kiss me: The kiss in art

By
Kelsey Moriarty
-
alt= the kiss in art
CC 1.0 / via RawPixel

I think I have always wondered how the first kiss came about. A quick Google search produces a very provisional 2500BC as an answer but there’s something terribly factual and unsatisfying about that – I want to understand what happened just moments before. The first kiss must’ve been so confusing and exciting. It’s no wonder the action has been repeated billions of times since, in moments of tenderness, passion, anger, and frenzy. Kisses convey emotion and attachment in a way that transcends the spoken language, and appeals rather to an innate human understanding of love and relationships.

Art has met this in many ways. Marina Abramović and Ulay’s 1977 performance piece Breathing In / Breathing Out involved the two artists blocking their noises with cigarette filters and pressing their mouths together until they both passed out nineteen minutes later. Neither could inhale anything but what the other had already exhaled. Abramović’s performance art is known for testing the limits of the human body, but this work with Ulay particularly highlights the convergence of bodies – the co-ordination of positioning, movement, and something so singular and ritual as breathing. During the performance there were microphones taped to their bodies, and the unified frenzied fight for breath shows the merging of physical function and identity that takes place during a kiss. It is a moment in which individuals are quite literally inseparable – their desires, vulnerabilities, and affections briefly intersect and become one. It leaves one wondering what sort of passion and blind confusion could lead to such an irrational action.

Sculpture captures this in a most interesting way. Most evident is Rodin’s The Kiss / Le Basier. Sculpture at its best possesses an innate ability to capture physical situations like theatre. The Kiss feels so universal in its scope – bodies contorted in want litter our past and Rodin’s work embodies all of this. The couple depicted are Paolo Malatesta and Francesca da Rimini, who are featured in Dante’s Inferno. Their kiss is the product of their passion when reading the story of Lancelot and Guinevere together. Rodin produced three full scale versions in his lifetime. All of this creates an idea that the marble Kiss feels almost as if it exists out of time and space. It feels as if it could exist anywhere – the marble is Grecian in character, the pose. The pose is reminiscent of Breathing In / Breathing Out, but the fusion of the marble mouths gives the piece a static quality, and a sort of poetic permanence. Also notable is Rodin’s approach to sculpting women – rather than portraying them as passive recipients of passion, he depicts them as active participants, ‘full partners in ardour’.

In the realm of painting, Klimt’s The Kiss is the most obvious point of discussion. Toulouse-Lautrec’s work The Bed, The Kiss / Au Lit, Le Basier, however, is more subtle and casual in its portrayal of intimacy – the women in the painting are wrapped in a soft embrace and kissing gently. The tight composition stresses the privacy of the setting, as well as the centrality of the figures to the heart of the painting. Softs reds and yellows flesh out the figures, giving them life and warmth. The brushstrokes are loose and tender, practically kissing the canvas and making the moment all the more intimate. Toulouse-Lautrec could’ve quite easily sensationalised it and been celebrated, but instead focuses on depicting it as-is – an act of everyday, mundane intimacy.

A window to the soul

By
Kiaya Phillips
-
CC 1.0 / via Unsplash

“A window to the soul”
I would fix my gaze upon its shutters
Pale, dusty blue-green
Tarnished edges
An irritating creak
They’re faulty,
Letting unwanted light stream in
Blinding me,
Or they snap close, abruptly
Bathing me in silky darkness
A frantic tug at their strings
A frenzy of grasping fists
Looking for a way in
Beyond invitation
Pressing their faces to the glass panes
Contorted expressions,
Of pain, of pleasure,
Disgust, hope, longing, lust, wanting…
Waiting impatiently
Tapping to crack the fragile glass
Closed eyes
Away from the pain
Pressing fingers into my skull
I’ll curl up in the darkness
Let the shutters open again once more
Later,
Leave me here for now
Just don’t let it consume me yet.

Are We Running Out Of Heroes?

By
James Forsdyke
-
Cartoon of superhero
Artwork by Sean Hartnett

It’s hard to know exactly when the concept of the action-cum-superhero movie started spinning out of control. I’m not sure if I’d place it in 2015 with the release of Ant-Man, or perhaps the release of Ant-Man and the Wasp in 2018, but it certainly seems to have happened before the premiere of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania in 2023. I’d say it was probably sometime between the release of the first and the eleventh of the Fast and Furious films, but definitely not recently enough to warrant consideration of the hair-brained Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem. 

Maybe it’s a me-problem. Maybe I just don’t care for big-budget action films, about things that don’t exist and powers which defy the laws of physics. I realise that for many, growing up watching Disney films (other franchises are available) was a right of passage, but for me, it was primarily Top Gear (the May-Clarkson-Hammond era, obviously) and secondly, like most PPE students, The Thick of It. I always enjoy a sense of realism. There’s something wondrous about seeing three relatively normal blokes – antiheroes perhaps – messing about and achieving amazing goals, seeing some incredible places along the way. But often, that sense of realism leads one to ask the inevitable question: ‘I can imagine there’s some truth to this, I wonder how much?’ I suppose that many great ideas have escapist elements to them. But some seem too over-the-top, unrealistic and formulaic to the point where we come to the end having learned nothing. 

It could be cynicism, but it feels like a running trend. How do you churn out so many films based around the same premises? It’s easy to understand why. If it makes a net profit then it’s a win. Perhaps the first one was popular, and the time has come to ride that wave of success into a sequel, and then a prequel, all the way into Fishman 14: Playing Cod – A Battering from Trouter Space. 

So, why can’t people come up with an idea, see it through, and then know when to stop? The ending of the original Italian Job in 1969 was so brilliant, a classic, to a large extent because: that was it! No more. Finished. Done. (Spoiler alert:) The literal cliffhanger invites viewers to speculate, to ask to no avail ‘But what happened next?!’. Making a follow-up to that, a true follow-on sequel would have fundamentally changed it. To know exactly when to stop and to leave the story as it is – I think that’s part of what makes a great work. 

Often sequels, particularly those which are made to fit post-production of the first or ‘added on’ to the existing work, can leave people asking the question: ‘Why?’. If it was never part of the plan to make one, and it wasn’t necessary for any reason to do with the value of the work, then it begins to look like the purpose is solely to generate revenue, and the knowledge of this surely has to count against the creative value of the project. When people other than those who originally generated the idea add to a work, I regard the project as fan fiction. There is something valuable about the intentions of the original creator even if they don’t absolutely and solely define the work. 

In 1926, Buster Keaton’s The General was released. He later said of it in 1963: “I was more proud of that picture than any I ever made.” He believed that he’d put so much effort into it, taking pride in telling the story in detail with a rich historical understanding that brought it into, perhaps, the same domain of realism I spoke of earlier. The protagonist is certainly another unconventional, imperfect hero. The story wasn’t so simple or straightforward. The film wasn’t successful, either monetarily or in terms of its acclaim, but is now widely regarded as a classic, and it’s still famous for containing the most expensive single scene in silent film history: a train wreck over a wooden bridge above the Row River, Cottage Grove which, at the time, set the production back $42,000, or today around $600,000. In a way, this demonstrates two points. Firstly, money won’t necessarily bring immediate success with it, but more importantly, when risks are taken, looking back in the long run we might eventually find ourselves appreciating them all the more. In this case, the risk was to a large extent financial, but it doesn’t have to be, it could rather be woven into the narrative. 

History, I think, rewards those who choose to throw everything at their creative endeavours, to do it their way rather than to replicate what is popular from a sort of metaphorical ‘formula-book’. It fascinates me when people create, not for the acclaim or the gain now, but to know that what has been achieved is exactly what it was intended to be, regardless of whether it becomes popular or not. 

Why aren’t there more people who are willing to create something that they genuinely care about for the sake of their enjoyment? I suspect it’s a combination of factors. Money, for one. Why take risks when you can copy something else, but make it slightly different, such that it draws a crowd and gives people what they appear to want? Secondly, a lot of people already invested in the industry depend on it for their livelihoods, so it’s perhaps understandable that those involved would want to follow a risk-averse strategy. But finally, and here’s the big one, I blame the cult of celebrity. 

There are two obvious ways to send a message via the medium of film, subtly and overtly. We’re forgetting the benefits of bringing ideas to people, not by lecturing them, but by creating the grounds by which an intellectual journey may start. It’s the difference between telling people what to think and giving them some ideas to ponder over. I got this latter sense, for instance, when I watched Ingmar Bergman’s Wild Strawberries, which tells the story of a doctor who, during a journey by car on his way to an honours ceremony being held in recognition of his services to medicine, finds himself having immersive dreams about his past. 

There’s nothing subtle about ‘celebrity’. From court cases devouring public attention through the medium of newspapers and clickbait, to insider interviews and gossip about A-listers, celebrity pays, big time, and because of that, the media coverage doesn’t have to be about anything positive, in fact, negative stories seem to arise all of the time precisely because they grab public attention. So getting good coverage doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re doing anything right, it just means you’re pulling the ropes to redirect the spotlight onto your own career. As long as celebrities fit a certain sort of expectation, as long as they say the right things and pay the right lip service to the press, they can often afford to cultivate a certain sort of narcissism which makes them liable to believe that they can transcend, in some cases, even the law. 

While big names proclaim that the public must educate themselves about their privileges, while sitting back on white velvet sofas sipping red wine and furiously flicking through social media, they’re also the same people with a huge amount of influence when it comes to television, culture and entertainment. It’s no wonder then that modern film and media seem to perpetuate the same sorts of messages, in similar sorts of ways. It usually requires a massive budget to make a film, and that seriously serves to limit a diverse array of people from entering the market and having an influence on our culture, not to mention that sometimes prevailing narratives can engender a conservatism which might serve to limit diversity of thought and a more truly inclusive forum, an inward looking habit perhaps occasionally punctuated by events such as the speech Ricky Gervais gave at the Golden Globes in 2020 which subsequently went viral. 

So I’ll return to where I began, to think about what a proper hero might look like. Readers might have noticed that I listed a variety of different superheroes at the start, so how can we be running out of heroes? Indeed it seems like the creation of a hero may be as easy as pulling different words out of various hats. “The…Pangolin…Man…Eureka!” That isn’t what I meant by the title. A hero or heroine requires some bravery, and to do what he or she thinks is right. I think that we have a tendency to admire that. Where then are the antiheroes of cinema? Why don’t we admire the small-budget student movie? Why don’t we afford more respect to the film born of an independent writer’s passion? Why not give some time to those who create something original or at least to those who know when the time has come to move on, to do something new? I think we can learn from one another through the medium of film, and it’s definitely a concern that at the moment it seems, we’re only learning about a limited part of a collective story. Our heroes aren’t always wearing a cape.

Driving Towards a Sustainable Future

By
Alice Banfield
-
Image Credit: Alberto g Rovi / CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia commons

Formula 1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, captivating fans across the globe. The 2022 season saw an average of 1.7 million UK viewers tuning in for each race; whether it be for the speed, the skill, or just the Dutch national anthem. However, as climate concerns continue to grow, the sport is faced with a challenge. As we move into an era defined by environmental consciousness and global responsibility, Formula 1 must turn its focus towards a more sustainable future.

‘Sustainable’ would probably be one of the last words you would think of when considering Formula 1, which produced 256,551 tonnes of CO2 in the 2018 season. Following this, F1 announced its sustainability strategy and vowed to reach net zero carbon by 2030. Although this sounds a tough task, some important modifications have already been implemented which are having a positive impact.

Recently, the sport has introduced a ban on single-use plastics at events, with over 80% of promoters in the 2022 season helping out via the installation of water refill stations, increased recycling facilities and the provision of refillable cups. Certain parts of cars are now being made of biodegradable materials, and a shift towards renewable energy has been seen in offices and factories, with a transition to 100% renewable energy underway. Changes such as these are having a positive impact, but the major issue lies with the incredibly inefficient and inefficient Formula 1 calendar. The logistics contribute around 45% to the overall CO2 emissions, with 10 racing teams and all of their equipment being required to travel to 23 races held in 20 different countries across 5 continents this season.

The key idea in tackling this issue is by regionalising the calendar to reduce the distances between each race. The current schedule is incredibly illogical, with a 2023 race order which, for example, requires teams to travel from Spain to Canada, only to go straight back to Europe for the Austrian Grand Prix. It has been reported that a new schedule is being planned, consisting of competition in four regions (Middle East, Europe, the Americas and east Asia/Australia), each hosting its own ‘season’. However, there is currently no real timeline for its implementation due to complications arising from existing contracts and the demands of host countries. One of the changes which has already been made for the 2024 season concerns the Japanese Grand Prix – it adopts an April date rather than its traditional autumn slot, so that it can take place in between races in Melbourne and Shanghai.

Meanwhile, teams have been busy redesigning freight containers so that more efficient aircraft can be used to transport equipment, leading to a reduction in emissions of 19.12%. For European races, biofuel trucks were used for transportation, with Mercedes reporting a cut in emissions by around 90% in 2022. Travel of personnel also has a large impact on emissions, so fans are currently being encouraged to travel using public transport, and broadcasting operations are beginning to be carried out remotely.

Perhaps surprisingly, the racing cars only generate 0.7% of emissions, but developments made in this area may be able to have an effect on the global transportation sector as a whole. Having created the most efficient hybrid engine in the world, F1 and the FIA are now working on developing a sustainable fuel which they hope can then be implemented in all cars. It is being designed with a ‘drop-in’ feature to reduce installation costs for use in existing cars. Its impact on the sustainability of F1 would be comparatively small, but if successful, this fuel has the potential to revolutionise the entire car industry and have a huge impact beyond the paddock.

Important changes have already been made, signalling the sport’s determination to drive change. It is of vital importance that F1 continues to prioritise sustainability and reimagine its practices to work towards a better future. The steps which have already been made are encouraging, but the net zero plan is highly ambitious and much more must be done to ensure a green future for the sport.

Russian Ambassador returns to Oxford

By
Oliver Adelson and Cem Kozanoglu
-
Image credit: David Stanley via. Wikimedia Commons

The Russian Ambassador to the UK, Andrey Kelin, addressed the Oxford Majlis Society at the Randolph Hotel on 29 November. His talk covered the shift to a multipolar world, the Russian position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This was not Kelin’s first time speaking for a student society at Oxford. Last May, the Oxford Russian Club hosted a Q&A with the ambassador, sparking much controversy throughout the University. Ultimately, the May invitation helped spur disaffected Russian students to form the New Russian Society.

It was this newly formed society that organised one of the protests against Kelin’s Majlis Society address. Half an hour before Kelin’s 6 p.m. speech, about forty protestors gathered outside the hotel to demonstrate against the ambassador’s presence at the University. The student society explained their motivations for the protest in a social media post earlier this week, writing: “We believe it is inappropriate to provide a platform for Russian state officials to disseminate their warmongering narratives and justify their brutal invasion of Ukraine. We have already reached out to the organiser society, but they dismissed our concerns.”

Another protest against the Russian ambassador was organised by the Ukrainian Society, which told Cherwell that the invitation “ha[d] nothing to do with freedom of speech, as it only [gave] platform to the dissemination of propaganda and the legitimisation of the aggression against sovereign states.”

When asked about the decision to host the ambassador, one protestor told Cherwell: “He has no business speaking here.” He continued: “It’s not because he’s Russian I’m Russian too.” Instead, the protestor said it was the ambassador’s connection with the Russian government that warranted rescinding his invitation to speak.

Another protestor held a sign that read: “My previous university was banned in Russia. Thank you for securing the freedom of speech for prosecutors [sic] of academic freedom!”

Some protesters brandished the Ukrainian flag and the “white-blue-white” flag, created by anti-war activists to represent opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The ambassador began his address by saying that he would state his views on the current situation and that he “welcome[d] all sorts of questions as long as they [were] in the form of civilised discussion.”

His first topic of discussion was the shift toward a multipolar world, which he said arose from “new centres being created in Latin America, Africa, and Asia” despite the US’s best efforts to avoid multipolarity through its policy of “divide and rule.”

On the conflict in the Middle East, the ambassador criticised Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians, stating: “In Israel, they were thinking that if they wouldn’t mention Palestinian issues for a period of time, everyone would forget about the Palestinians, and other Arab nations would resume relations with Israel.

“I would like to confirm that we are against all forms of terrorism. Of course what Hamas did on October 7 is in this category…What is being done in Gaza and in Palestine is also unacceptable.”

The ambassador told the audience that Russia’s position since the first day of the crisis in the Middle East has been for the full cessation of hostilities, the protection of civilians, and the opening of humanitarian corridors. He also affirmed his support for a two-state solution based on June ‘67 borders.

The ambassador then drew an analogy between the West’s approach to Israel-Palestine and the West’s approach to Russia-Ukraine: “Western nations forget the history of the crisis…They are trying to say the crisis in the Middle East started on October 7. They are trying to say conflict in Ukraine began on February 24 , 2022. This is not true.”

Before taking questions, the ambassador stated: “My last point is that we are not against Ukrainian sovereignty at all. We would like to have as a neighbour the neutral and prosperous Ukraine.”

One audience member asked the ambassador about Russia’s policy of punishing dissidents, citing cases where non-violent dissidents received harsher sentences than convicted murderers. The ambassador said he was not familiar with the details of specific cases but criticised Western journalistic coverage of dissidents in Russia. He told the audience: “It’s one thing to say you dislike an operation. No one is going to touch you. But if you raise money to send to Ukrainian forces it’s another thing. Or, if you gather information to send to Ukraine, the state has to protect itself.” 

Human Rights Watch has, however, released detailed reports on the Russian government handing down “long prison sentences for ‘offences’ such as referring to the armed conflict in Ukraine as a ‘war,’ criticising the invasion or the conduct of Russian armed forces, and reporting on war crimes by the Russian military or on Ukrainian civilian casualties.”

One woman in the audience told the ambassador that she “felt sorry if Russian speakers had been oppressed in Donbas” before asking what Russian troops were doing in Odesa and Kyiv. Ambassador Kelin interrupted to say that there were no troops in Odesa, which prompted the woman to ask, “Then why are there Russian missiles there?” The ambassador claimed that Russia was only targeting military assets: “This is what every country does.”

Another audience member stated she was from Odesa, Ukraine. She said one of her former students had been killed along with her six-month-old child by a Russian airstrike. She then asked the ambassador what the security guarantees would be for Ukraine if it became a “neutral state” and how the Ukrainians could know that they would be safeguarded against Russian aggression.

The ambassador said that it was unclear whether the strike in Odesa came from an anti-aircraft missile launched by Ukraine or from a weapon launched by Russia. He then claimed that Russia had already proposed security guarantees to Ukraine that were rejected by the US and NATO in December 2021, months before the start of the war. He invoked similar guarantees made in 2009 and 2005, which he said were also rejected.

After the event, several dozen protestors outside chanted “shame” as the ambassador left The Randolph Hotel.

The Ukrainian Society has also told Cherwell that some people were refused entry to the event while carrying Ukrainian flags, which would have allegedly “provoke[d] the ambassador.” They added: “It is interesting how selective in the eyes of the Majlis Society freedom of speech is.”

In response, The Majlis told Cherwell that  “threats of physical violence by members of Ukraine Society” were the reason some had been denied entry. They further stated that they regretted “accusations of selective free speech” and said that they had offered to host a similar type of event for a Ukrainian representative. 

The Ukraine Society has since denied making threats of physical violence. In an extended response to Cherwell, the Society wrote: “We are deeply disturbed by Oxford Majlis Society’s allegations against Oxford University Ukrainian Society, specifically by the patently untrue claim of our members threatening the attendees with physical violence. There have never been any attempts or plans to threaten the community by any of the members of the Oxford University Ukrainian Society. 

“The person who was denied entry to the event was a Ukrainian journalist. Wrapping her shoulders with the Ukrainian flag, she attempted to enter the premises with her child but was rudely banned. Despite having the ticket and presenting her ID, the guards did not provide a reason why they denied her right to enter the event…

“We have some of the recordings of the conversation between our members and the Oxford Majlis representatives that confirm there have not been any threats from our side. Additionally, there have been countless witnesses to every conversation and argument happening. Moreover, the police have been present at the location of the event. The police did not record any threats nor were informed of any threats by members of the Majlis Society.”

This article was updated to include comment from the Ukrainian Society and the Majlis at 23:05 on 6 December 2023. The Majlis have been reached out to for further comment.

Investment in (men’s) sports needs to slow down.

By
Zoe Abereoje
-

A few weeks ago, listening to Ian Wright’s 60th birthday podcast special I picked up on something very interesting. When asked what he wanted to spend this stage of his life doing he responded, helping grow the women’s game and when asked why he responded, “It’s really pure”. At first, I wasn’t really sure how to interpret this comment but looking at the way the sport interacts with its fans, growth and investment against the men’s side, I feel pretty confident to say I have grasped the distinction.

When investments are made into the women’s game, it is a decision by shareholders and investors to grow the sport in the name of fans, the competitors involved and for the general growth of the sport. When a large investment is made on the men’s side, I’m not sure the intentions are the same. It tends to come down to one thing alone: financial incentive. I’m not trying to paint this incentive as negative, after all, the largest male sports are usually very well established, face very few existential threats and have large followings already, therefore, it would be impossible for me to expect the same intentions for investments across each side. What I find concerning, however, is that seemingly the faster-growing sport is the more established side.

This weekend saw the introduction of the Las Vegas F1 weekend, held on a racing circuit that wound through the lit-up streets of Vegas. With the track featuring a straight that ran alongside the strip of Vegas’ largest and most expensive hotels, a Rolls Royce used as a cooldown room and constant advertising plastered across the newly built Sphere throughout the race, to say money wasn’t the incentive for the weekend would be impossible. The levels of investment seen in F1’s modern era is incredible, with race weekends cropping up from Miami to Riyadh. The sport once considered heavily exclusive to Europe now engages more in races outside of the continent than within it.

And while the levels of investment in F1 are at incredible highs the same really cannot be said for the women’s side. A criticism that has consistently been laid at F1’s feet is the lack of women in the sport, something that the W-series, an all-women’s racing championship, has sought to correct since 2019. While the W series wasn’t perfect, it certainly didn’t deserve its demise as it went into administration this year. My argument isn’t so much to say, that F1 doesn’t deserve to grow, I raise the question of why it is allowed to grow in the face of issues and inequalities that need to be solved.

Even a similar effect can be seen in football. It is easy to assume that inequality between the two games is reducing as more visibility is gained on the women’s side. However, if reducing inequality between the two sides of the sport was ever meant to be a long-term goal, it can never be achieved for as long as the investment trends between the two sports continue. Investment in the men’s game does not seem to be slowing down even though it is unequivocally established as a sport. This is not to say the women’s side hasn’t experienced its fair share of growth too, looking at the UK only, Arsenal WFC smashed the WSL average attendance record last season with 17,501.

While the trajectory of the women’s side does look great, this holds no torch to the financial prospects of the men’s astronomical earnings. With the new Swiss format for the Champions League starting next year and the plans by FIFA to install a new club World Cup, it is clear the money that investors stand to gain from the men’s side of the game could be very lucrative. However, this growth, in my opinion, is entirely unnecessary; the Champions League format was just fine, save from fears from organisations and investors alike that larger teams can currently go out too soon which could risk revenues.

The Swiss format would have made more sense in the women’s side, with big teams like Manchester United and Juventus leaving the women’s Champions League so early. Investment for the good of the game would make sense here yet it hasn’t been seen. In contrast, investment in the men’s game has no signs of stopping, as international competitions develop, so do other leagues like the Saudi Pro League, appearing to have endless sums of money ready to be spent. Despite the strides taken in the women’s game it is difficult to ignore the enormous leaps the men’s side has been making recently.

I would argue that excessive money and investment have always been a tenet of (men’s) sports but recently this has reached new levels. More and more global investors are spending money on sports. American investment in non-American sports surely has never been so high, with F1 charting three separate races in America, its grip on the sport grows, stronger and more influential each year. Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney have a whole documentary detailing their investment from California into Wrexham AFC and if that wasn’t enough they have joined the Otro capital group which is investing in Alpine a French F1 team along with other stars like Trent Alexander Arnold and Micheal B Jordan. Riyadh is the new boxing capital of the world, and it might just be the centre of football in a decade. Despite these sports being enormous already, more money is filtering in from across the world at blinding rates.

Fundamentally international investment sentiment has massively shifted to the point where (men’s) sports appear to be the new blue-chip stock. With established fan bases and competition structures, it seems that eyes are increasingly turning towards sport as the “best bang for your buck”. With all this money being invested in one side of the sport, I would say that this threatens to increase the gendered inequality that only recently people are becoming more aware of. While changes in the Champions League format, new F1 races, new golf competitions and boxing fights promise endless opportunities, one opportunity stands to be lost and that is closing the gap across the genders.

Image Credit: Alex-David Baldi // CC BY 2.0 DEED

Oxford survey finds confidence in the West to be declining

By
Cherwell News
-
Image credit: Number 10 Downing Street

The results of a major global public opinion survey indicate confidence in the West and the stability of its alliances is waning. 

Oxford University’s Europe in a Changing World research project—in partnership with the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)—conducted an opinion poll across 21 nations, asking participants for their views on international alignment, the West, and leadership. 

The survey, conducted in September and October 2023, had about 1,000 respondents from each participating country. However, respondents from China, India, and Russia were not representative of national demographics since they were chosen from exclusively rural areas. 

The subsequent report, co-authored by Oxford Professor Timothy Garton Ash, political scientist Ivan Krastev, and ECFR director Mark Leonard, concluded that although respondents across the world generally view the Western way of life positively, the West (specifically the EU) lacks the hard power necessary to compete. Instead, a large number of individuals have diagnosed the West as having less stable alliances and a dim future for liberal democracy. 

Central to the report is the finding that alliances are becoming more fluid, with respondents preferring to side with different countries depending on the target issue. This is a significant shift away from bipolar blocs that have traditionally dominated international politics. 

Despite alliance fragmentation, many nations still say they would prefer security cooperation with the US to China, and, when asked what a “good leader” is, most participants chose “seeking international cooperation” as paramount. 

When asked where they would prefer to live (other than their own country) most non-Western respondents said either the US or the EU. Only 5% of non-Western respondents chose China. 

However, although Western standards of living are internationally recognised as preferable, there is surprisingly little trust in the future of Western political clout. Most people surveyed in Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia believe the EU will collapse in the next 20 years. When asked to describe the EU in one word, respondents rarely chose “strong.” 

Moreover, the majority of respondents from China and Saudi Arabia indicated they believed the US would cease to be a democracy in the next 20 years. The grim picture of the West painted by these autocratic countries may be a reflection of a new anti-West posture in these states. 

Additionally, while the West believes in its ability to help Ukraine beat Russia, most of the rest of the world is placing their bets on Russia. 

It is important to note, however, that respondents from some countries might not have been able to share their true opinions. 

The authors of the survey suggest the EU should adopt a policy of “strategic interdependence,” recognizing that while the EU will never be completely self-sufficient, it needs to do much more to make itself a strong geopolitical actor. Additionally, the report suggested the EU broaden its alliances by fortifying relations with newly emerged middle powers such as Turkey, India, Brazil, and South Africa. In response to the weakening perception of the West and its alliances, Professor Garton Ash concludes the solution is investment in military and security to bolster “hard power” in a bid to secure the EU’s role as a geopolitical actor on the world stage. 

The survey, though alarming, doesn’t point to freezing ties between states as much as to shifting attitudes of individuals across different countries. The question of whether popular opinion will influence policy changes is still up for debate.

Three titles shortlisted for Blackwell’s Book of the Year

By
Selina Chen
-
Image credit: Peter Trimming

A panel from Oxford institution booksellers Blackwell’s have named Mary Beard’s Emperor of Rome, Martin MacInnes’ In Ascension, and Pari Thomson’s Greenwild as winners of Blackwell’s non-fiction, fiction and children’s Book of the Year respectively. 

The category winners are nominees for Blackwell’s Book of the Year, which will be announced on 28 November.

As the author of international bestseller SPQR on ancient Rome, Beard has changed her recent focus to the emperors that ruled the Roman Empire. Emperor of Rome goes beyond a chronological account of Roman political history, instead “[asking] bigger questions: What power did emperors actually have? Was the Roman palace really so bloodstained?” said Blackwell’s synopsis.

Blackwell’s Oxford bookseller James Orton described the work as “an in depth look at the eccentricities of the emperors that ruled Rome through its most turbulent time in History. A classic example of when fact can be much stranger than fiction.”

In Ascension traverses space instead of time as marine scientist Leigh explores remote locations across the world in search of answers beyond human understanding. Blackwell’s synopsis describes the book as a “compassionate, deeply inquisitive epic that reaches outward to confront the greatest questions of existence [and] looks inward to illuminate the smallest details of the human heart.”

The first of Thomson’s New York Times bestselling fantasy series, Greenwild takes young readers on an enchanting journey with Daisy, a boarding school escapee who discovers a hidden doorway into “a spellbinding world where the wilderness is alive and a deep magic rises from the earth itself,” according to Blackwell’s synopsis.

Founded in 1879, on 50 Broad Street, Oxford, Blackwell’s has since expanded into a chain of 30 bookshops across the UK. Its Norrington Room held for many years the Guinness Record for the single largest room in the world selling books.

1...585960...2,438Page 59 of 2,438

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy