Monday 4th May 2026
Blog Page 721

The awkward conversation around ‘Privilege’

James Lingfield
-
0
The awkward conversation around ‘Privilege’

The concept of social ‘privilege’ is something that only relatively recently has been prominent in social discourse.

Some believe that it’s something that defines the very essence of everything one can achieve in their lives, such as columnist Brando Simeo Starkey. Others, like lecturer at the University of Michigan Jamie R. Abrams disregard entirely believing it to be a myth.

When asked to write something on the topic, I had to reflect on the concept and my own position on it for one of the first times ever, and its something I have found quite difficult.

It’s a topic that’s impossible to define, quantify and measure and even my own musings will be completely different to yours of your friends or anyone else’s.

I felt best to begin with myself. As shocking as it may be for some of you to hear, I’m disabled. When I was born, my parents were told I would never walk, talk, sit up, or even eat solid food, and that I’d likely be dead by the time I was 12.

Luckily, and against all medical advice, my parents refused to accept this prognosis, trying any way that they could to make a better life for me.

I’m so thankful for the mobility I have, because I know it should have been much worse. That’s not to say that there are many facets of my disability that I really don’t like, many of which are not too obvious to others.

I fatigue an awful lot quicker than most, so am limited in the amount of time I can spend both working and socialising. In addition, this city in particular throws up a lot of access issues. The fact that I’m in Bridge every Thursday is because it’s the only club accessible for wheelchairs. Perhaps what irritates me the most of my condition is the social stigmas surrounding it.

The slightly higher and slower speaking voice that I’m met with when talking to strangers is a bit too common of an occurrence for me. A girl I met in the summer even asked my Dad: “Did he really get into Oxford?”.

It’s very hard to create an individual personality that allows you to be per- ceived outside of your wheelchair. As much as I love the people and the environment at Hilda’s, I even felt it took at least until around the midpoint of Michaelmas to kick these stigmas at university, which is why I really didn’t enjoy the beginning of my time here.

The issue of ‘privilege’ I think perhaps is highlighted here. I even felt that I had to overcome these social preconceptions when meeting everyone, even some of who I now consider my closest friends.

They clearly never had any malicious intention, which is why I feel it unfair to confront people on this issue, when, if anything, they’re doing it with my benefit in mind.

The Wikipedia definition of privilege is: “The perceived rights or advantages that are assumed to be available only to a particular person or group of people”. Under this definition, I feel personally I don’t quite have the ‘advantage’ of having a ‘blank slate’ in a new social situation, with me often having to joke about the disability to bring out the elephant in the room.

In a more practical sense, even last term, there were many events that I’d turn up to, not be able to attend, and then leave my friends with choice of either leaving me or spoiling their night, which is a lose-lose scenario.

I think it’s fair to assume these all to be considered as some sort of ‘privilege’ for abled bodied people.

However, even factoring in my own experiences, I still feel the term ‘privilege’ is a bit problematic. Granted, I am disabled, from a working-class background, and am a first-generation University student, which could lead you to assume that I am lacking ‘privilege’.

However, I am also a heterosexual, white, man, which one could argue grants me certain ‘privileges’. There are also issues of types and degrees of ‘privilege’: am I, say, more ‘privileged’ than an able bodied, black woman from the LGBT community?

Even from a mobility point of view, is the fact that I still have function of all four limbs a type of ‘privilege’ I hold over other people with certain disabilities?

Your answers to all of these questions would likely depend on your own social position and perceived ‘privileges’, which in turn I suppose throws into question this entire piece: can my point of view be trusted and accepted given my own social position?

Can I be trusted to be unbiased, subconsciously or otherwise? The fact that Oxford University is not 100% comprised of white, British, abled bodied, heterosexual men is a sign that ‘privilege’ is not a definitive.

Society has evolved to the point where, although its true ‘equality’ can be debated to say the least, one can overcome their social ‘privileges’, as seen by all of us being where we are.

I don’t think its unfair to feel that an Oxford Education is a ‘privilege’, given its likely career boosts.

So ultimately, the question of the severity of different types of ‘privileges’, and if ‘privilege’ even exists in the first place is a debate for someone far cleverer than I (I’m an English student, I’m clearly not that bright).

I just think that, given that everyone has a different social position, and thus a different level, type, and perception of ‘privilege’, the healthiest and best way of dealing with it and getting it out in the open is to talk about it more.

We have to create a discourse with people from all sides contributing, so that hopefully, one day, the marrying of all these different perspectives can be achieved.

Review: ENRON – “absolutely captivating”

Agatha Bather
-
0
Review: ENRON – “absolutely captivating”

Lucy Prebble’s play follows the rise and fall of the energy trading giant Enron. Jeffery Skilling, your least favourite PPE boy who loves telling you how smart he is through the medium of debate, transforms the old gas and oil company into a firm that trades in energy, then bandwidth – and maybe even weather.

We first meet Skilling at a staff party (or a “celebration of ignorance”), in which the company is drinking to moving the financial model of mark-to-market, a model which allows for the company to increase their stock price before or, in this case without, increasing their profits. With him is Andy Fastow, another Oxford type, this time the nerdy one who still likes you to know he’s intelligent but flexes slightly less.

As the play persists, the work that the two men are doing seems to become increasingly removed from the world around them. Skilling takes the company from selling energy to the “glistening, clean industry” of trading. With their company’s stocks mainly being reliant on projections when the projects don’t pay off, Enron is left verging on bankruptcy, and so Fastow detaches himself further from reality, creating shadow companies to hide the debt, embodied as dinosaurs.

The company is distancing itself from reality, but the impact it is having on real life is only getting greater. We hear of deaths and the ruining of lives in the name of Skilling’s ego, or the company’s share price, all juxtaposed with crude jokes and a classic neo-liberal excuse that the company cannot be wrong, its either the fault of overregulation or the market.

The two other main players in the Enron game are Ken Lay, Enron’s chairman, and Claudia Row, Skilling’s failed rival and a character representing an amalgamation of high up company staff. Lay is an honest grandfather-like figure who takes a step back when he notices business is getting dodgy and refuses to hear of anything wrong, claiming, “Once you bury a dead dog, you don’t dig it up to smell it”. Row is an old-schooler with a distaste for Skilling’s ideas who generally fails to use her femininity to her advantage in this masculine company, although we are led to suspect that she may have been more successful before Skilling’s arrival.

What really hits home about the production is this: while you’re watching it, you’re sat near to, or maybe even are, the next Jeffery Skilling. He tells us that the smart people like him work in the private sector, and those who dossed about become politicians. I urge everyone to make their PPE friends watch it as a morality check.

Enron tells this corporate story through extravagant staging. Dressed like a park ranger with a tie around his head, Andy Fastow invites us into his lair-like office which slowly becomes filled with green lighting, smoke, and the aforementioned dinosaurs. We watch this childlike character treating hiding debt and finding loopholes as an all-consuming game. This game continues ‘upstairs’: throwing punches, losing money and cracking jokes, the traders almost can’t stop moving in the testosterone fuelled trading floor; each excited line delivered to us after a run downstage. The production amazes throughout with its rather ‘dotcom-bubble’ electronic backdrop projecting political events, graphs and share prices.

This staging was absolutely captivating: I found I couldn’t take my eyes away for the entire performance. Every scene change is slick, with those moving furniture doing so – in suits – in a fast and ordered fashion. Every detail of the play is considered, from establishing the scene and moving the plot through a long period of time quickly (and without discontinuity), to directing the audience’s attention to the speaker.

The performance from all the cast is similarly incredible; their comedic timing is on point, and I’d be surprised if any of them could have done anything more with their lines. There were laughs from the audience throughout, driven both by comic lines and also by the drama of the scene. While watching, I was even drawn to believe the age of the characters through their convincing acting styles and costumes.

We are even treated to further absurdity with a beautifully harmonised barbershop-esque performance, as well as the throwing of shredded documents over Lay. This surreal quality keeps us at a safe distance from identifying with the would-be-tragic-hero, Jeffery Skilling. Although he and Enron fall, the people who fall with it fall more; and rather than the ending being cathartic, I was left rather more with a desire for social justice, or at least a desire to throw two fingers up to capitalism and move to Norway and raise some chickens.

With absolutely no lawful wrongdoing or vested interest, I wholeheartedly recommend that you watch this play.

Slow Cookers: The Future Of Student Gastronomy?

Peter Lewis
-
0
Slow Cookers: The Future Of Student Gastronomy?

Being a student at Oxford is busy occupation. Between the masses of lectures, tutorials and vain attempts to hold down a social life, its no wonder we struggle to find time to cook.

Having to rely on college catering is a risky business. Chaotic schedules of rehearsals, classes, training sessions, and the occasional nap often result in students missing meal times, and having the unenviable task of throwing together something edible at the end of a long day.

Being all too aware of this problem, I asked myself, is there a better way for students to eat?

A possible solution may lie in the purchase of a slow-cooker.

Over the vacation Santa was kind enough to leave me one under my tree which, despite making me feel very old, did make me quite excited at the thought of coming home in the freezing evenings to a steaming pot of delicious casserole or spaghetti bolognaise.

For those of you who don’t know, a slowcooker cooks your meal – slowly – throughout the day, saving you the trouble of preparing a meal when you get home. You simply chop up all your ingredients in the morning, leave it to steam for six-eight hours, then open up the pot to consume a tasty meal.

While this does involve a degree of preparation in the morning, the cooking itself is a one-step, chop-and-chuck process, and the machine is very simple to use.

There’s also a lot of variety with the meals you can make. While my first thoughts were only of hot stews to ward off the cold, popular recipes include curries, soups, lasagne, chicken, and even cakes if you’re feeling adventurous. They’re also great for those seeking healthier alternatives, eliminating the temptation to order food in, or wander down to the nearest chippy in search of sustenance.

Slow-cookers are also compatible with a student budget, with prices ranging between £10-£30 for a small model. While using it does force you to buy your own ingredients, the lengthy steaming process can tenderize less expensive cuts of meat, allowing for money to be saved on ingredients. They also use significantly less electricity than an oven, and leftover portions can be refrigerated, ready to eat at a later date.

Inevitably the biggest downside of slowcookers is the amount of time they take up. Preparing meals does involve that little bit of extra work in the mornings, which limits their usefulness for those inclined to sleep-in as much as they can.

Additionally, the planning of meals alongside the weekly food shop takes up more time than simply attending college meals.

Nevertheless, they do offer a refreshing sense independence for anyone finding themselves rushing around in the evenings, and can be an invaluable tool for anyone seeking to eat well on a budget.

Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Emma Hawkins
-
0
Recipe: Chocolate Tacos

Makes 10

Time: 90 minutes

Ingredients

For the shells

  • 100g Plain flour
  • 100g Caster sugar
  • 2 tbsp Cocoa powder
  • 2 Large egg whites
  • 2 tbsp Melted butter
  • 60ml Whole milk

For the filling

  • 50g Milk chocolate
  • 100g Chopped hazelnuts
  • A few scoops of chocolate ice cream
  • Double cream (or squirty cream)
  • Fresh fruit (I went for bananas and strawberries)

Method

1. Begin by making the taco shells. Put the flour, sugar, and cocoa into a large bowl and whisk together.

2. In another bowl put the egg whites, melted butter, and milk and whisk together.

3. Pour the wet mixture into the dry mixture and whisk to make a smooth batter.

4. Place a small frying pan over a medium heat. Lightly oil and then add about 1 tbsp batter to the pan. Smooth the mixture around the pan to make an even layer.

5. Cook for a couple of minutes and then flip the taco over and cook for another couple of minutes on the other side.

6. Cover a rolling pin in cling film (or another long round object). Take the taco shell out of the pan and carefully fold it over the rolling pin. Hold it in shape for about 10 seconds and then leave to cool whilst you repeat with the rest of the mixture.

7. Once all your mixture is used up melt the chocolate for the filling in a heatproof bowl over a pan of gently simmering water.

8. Dip the edge of one of the tacos in the melted chocolate and then dip the edge into a bowl of the chopped hazelnuts. Leave on a plate to set.

To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

Fin Kavanagh and Abby Ridsdill-Smith
-
1
To include the excluded: An interview with Baroness Royall

First opened to women in 1879, Somerville can hardly call itself old as Oxford colleges go. It can however boast to be the only remaining college to have hosted all-female principals. Baroness Janet Royall is the latest to join those ranks.

Her predecessor, Alice Prochaska, came from a radically different background of historical cookery books and archiving, while Jan’s careers is rooted in Westminster. Chief whip of the House of Lords during the Blair years, she makes no attempt to hide her politics. Not an Oxbridge graduate herself, unlike the majority of principals and deans, she provides a breath of fresh air to the college – though far from a quiet one.  

Her latest crusade, removing octopus terrine from the freshers’ welcome dinner, in an attempt to create a more inclusive environment, proved to be a goldmine for the broadsheets. While Giles Coren, Rod Liddle, and the gammon brigade in The Telegraph’s online comments were quick to accuse her of pandering to us snowflakes, the move was well received by students – not to mention the cephalopod community, who have since requested their own JCR officer.

Arguably, the worst thing about “Terrinegate” was the way it overshadowed Somerville’s other attempts to become more accessible. The college gave 72.6% of its UK offers to state school students in January, significantly more than the Oxford average. Like many other colleges, it’s also committed to radically increasing access and outreach spending, in response to the admissions report of May last year.

“Access [ensures] that young people who got the ability to come to Oxford University, and enjoy everything that is brilliant about Oxford [also] have the ability to do so,” Jan explains:

“One of our founding principles was to include the excluded and that ethos continues to this day. We want to include everybody who has the ability to get here.”

“We want to ensure we maintain academic standards…just like everyone all over Oxford. But there are many young people who live in disadvantaged areas, and have difficult family backgrounds. Through no fault of their own, they may have never thought about Oxford. But Oxford is for everybody.”

All colleges have committed to change since May. However, there is a great difference between promising and creating change. Jan explains that Somerville has committed to participating in UNIQ, along with 22 other colleges this summer, in line with the programme’s expansion. She also refers to Target Oxbridge and Somerville’s own “demystifying day” – which aims to make the University less intimidating to prospective students before their interviews.

She also notes the effectiveness of the college system in improving access, explaining:

“It should be an opportunity, as there are well evidenced Oxford wide initiatives – like UNIQ. It enables many different [access initiatives] to be tried, tested, [to] see whether or not they work. It’s very important now that colleges are coming together more to work in a more focussed way in different areas of the country.

“As long as colleges cooperate and collaborate when and where necessary, it’s good to have the collegiate system”.

Jan’s comments are at odds with some other commentators. Lord Adonis recently called for colleges to be built for disadvantaged students. David Lammy also recommended that the admissions process be centralised. The University remains highly skeptical about both proposals, though we wanted to see if she had given them any thought:

“I think it’s interesting to hear other people’s ideas, but I think this is up to Oxford, because we have to determine what is best for the University, and best for our students throughout the country. What worries me is that some people from outside of Oxford think we are wanting to bring about change for PR reasons, and that is not the case. The reasons we at Somerville, and I’m convinced all colleagues in all of the colleges, what to bring about change is because it’s the right thing to do…for the University, and for society as a whole.”

Doing the right thing for the university, and for society, was inherent in Jan’s decision to remove octopus from the menu. We approach the subject and the wider question of tradition, and whether that played a role in her decision:

“I personally like tradition, and I think it’s great we are rooted in some traditions. The thing about the ridiculous octopus story is its not about dumbing down as some people have suggested, it’s a way of ensuring that when people first come to Somerville they think it’s a place which feels okay, I don’t want students to feel like they can’t be themselves here, they must feel able to be themselves, but I also want them to feel comfortable.    

“After day one, let’s have lots and lots of octopus, but on day one, lets have things that people feel comfortable with.”

A Public Health Emergency

Zahra Farzanekhoo
-
0
A Public Health Emergency

In 2013, a group of doctors declared in the British Medical Journal that food hunger is a ‘public health emergency’. Often when thinking about food scarcity, we tend to think about developing countries and famine. We forget that food hunger is present on our doorstep. We come face to face with it every day without even realising; perhaps whilst walking down Cornmarket at night or in the supermarket aisles where a mother may be visibly conflicted as she decides how to make her last £2 feed four people that evening. It is an issue that should not exist anywhere, but especially not in one of the world’s largest economies, where supermarkets are packed to the brim, full of food they will throw out at the close of business.

As a result of the 2008 Financial crisis and the subsequent austerity measures introduced by David Cameron and the coalition government, the use of food banks has grown drastically.

Furthermore, a 2012 study undertaken by Netmums found that 20% of mothers missed out on meals so they could feed their children instead. More and more children are showing up to school malnourished and underweight and whilst many see school holidays as a much needed break, for many families it is a very stressful time because they cannot afford to feed their children.

The first step to alleviating this issue is acknowledging that it exists. The Conservative government has to realise the severity of this is- sue and how deeply it runs through the country. In 2017, Jacob Rees-Mogg notably commented that “inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks”.

There aren’t. There is one simple reason: Conservative government policy has caused so much strain on low-income people that they have resorted on charity to fulfil their own and their families most basic needs. The government needs to stop brushing it under the carpet and its reliance on food banks and charities to address its shortcomings and inadequacies.

Once the government recognises the reality of the issue, they need to reform the current benefits and universal credits system.

In particular, they must work harder to en- sure that there are no delays or gaps in income. Even a lag of one day can be too much. It is important to note that some people even lack access to food banks or are unaware or embarrassed to use them.

We need to have a system which understands the context of the issue that it is attempting to be solved. In fact, we already have a welfare system that has the primary aim of reducing poverty, a system that those who are on the boundary of survival rely heavily on.

Therefore, it would make sense and it would be reasonable to expect that this system also has a solution built in which addresses the issues that will inevitably arise if payments are delayed. This can only happen if there the government initiates a cultural shift and changes the approach currently employed and exhibited by local councils.

The first would be to limit the use of benefit sanctioning in only a few exceptional cases and have a greater understanding and respect for the people who are appealing for help.

The government needs to rethink its harsh austerity measures that are disproportionately affecting low-income people. It needs to stop making the most vulnerable in our society pick between keeping warm or eating. It needs to stop making parents choose between feeding themselves and feeding their children. And it needs to recognise that this issue exists and it needs to stop tolerating it as just a by-product of economic security. If the only way this government thinks it can achieve economic security is by starving its poorest, then it confirms what we always knew about the Conservative party.

Until then, people in Oxford and across the nation will continue to suffer from nutritional poverty without any hope of a solution in the foreseeable future.

The Long Con: The fine art of deception

-
0
The Long Con: The fine art of deception

One of the most powerful tools available to the artist is the faith placed in them by those wishing to experience their art. The artist not only has the ability to direct the gaze, guide the eye and foreground wherever they wish, however they are trusted to do so. Rarely do we hear, save in revisionist criticism, about accidental exposition, the unintentional genesis of theme and discussion; the faithful reader adopts a highly attributive view.
This invites a much wider discussion of authorial intention, which must arguably be undertaken by all who wish to engage in any form of criticism. But more importantly, it empowers the artist to construct a complex of layers and semantics, over which only they appear to have control. The willing follower will happily walk on whatever path they are directed, a motion eerily reminiscent of the continuous turning of pages, or the unfaltering, steady progress one makes through an art gallery.
This participative view of engagement with art highlights the potential for illusion on the part of an artist, affording a false autonomy or conception of a piece, only to undermine it swiftly after. When discussing the deliberate use of illusion by creatives then, it is perhaps here where we should start; the illusion of choice under which we operate. Netflix special Bandersnatch, discussed in a flurry of recent articles across various platforms, highlighted how rare it is for us to be forced to take an active in our consumption of media by taking the ‘choose your own ending’ format to television for the first time. Bandersnatch’s exceptionality is a useful reminder that we do not often consider the role of the reader in the formation of a text, or the equivalent process in visual and auditory arts. It is very easy to be lulled into a false empowerment by the critical process, believing that the role can be as creative as can be observational.
One reads into a text, we bring what we wish to and see it as almost a mathematical function; processing input in a certain manner so as to render a creative product, comprised of both authorial and reader contribution. However, this common conception of the process, whilst not necessarily flawed in a theoretical sense can be of almost redemptive power for a creator. They may become separated from their work, or at least, have their original agenda concealed by the hubris of a critic. As the Union discussed on Thursday, this separation can have a variety of effects, but the most worrying is the distraction from original intention and bias. The very process of critical engagement is often regarded as so empowering, that it may act as a political smoke screen behind which genuine partisanship may hide. A natural example would be the ‘discovery’ of misogyny and racism in old texts. The new interpretations are often attributed to ‘Feminist critics’ or unnamed ‘professors’, rather than the original author themselves. Terming any form of reader response an ‘illusion’ is a little dismissive, but thankfully this discussion relates more to presentation of the process in the media. The delusional aspect is the idea that we may lay the blame for products of the hermeneutic process at the door of the interpreter, not the author themselves. In a similar vein, a common resort of the artist with obscurative designs is the adoption of a nom de plume. J.K Rowling’s Robert Galbraith, Eric Arthur Blair’s George Orwell and Mary Anne Evans’ George Eliot are amongst the most famous of this recurrent feature in modern publication, the existence of each being accredited do a separate motivation.
Rowling wished to overcome her fame and association with Harry Potter, as the novels she wrote as Galbraith departed entirely from her previous successes, Orwell wished to avoid social scandal and defend the family name, whilst Eliot faced the still present task of avoiding classification on the basis of her sex. Despite these fairly admirable and entirely understandable motivations, the adoption of a pseudonym is still an illusion, the fabrication of a false persona in order to distract from a reality which may discredit the author, or have negative repercussions. We may compare this process to the use of the dramatic monologue, especially in Modernist poetry. Despite their inclusion of their own names, poets T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound wrote some of their best known works through personas, as J. Alfred Prufrock and Hugh Selwyn Mauberley respetively. The construction of character and the deployment of a then distinctive voice is effectively synonymous with the use of a pen name, as well as the impact and notability that the work may gain. Another layer of detachment is placed between author and text, the illusion of proximity to the progenitor is augmented.
In comparison to the more obvious uses of illusion in art, such as the optical and auditory disturbances of Natalie Fletcher and Gesine Marwedel (a German bodypainter who uses the human form like a canvasm to striking effect), these two forms of illusion that surround the compositional process are perhaps more potent and worthy of our attention. We must consider the separation of a piece and its creator, whilst considering the spectral illusions of complete knowledge and understanding that so often haunt artistic engagement.

#Cancelled: Disillusionment in the age of Twitter #MeToo

Reem Sultan
-
0
#Cancelled: Disillusionment in the age of Twitter #MeToo

The overlap in the sets of ‘Good People’ and ‘Famous People’ seems to diminish every day. Chip by chip veneers of morality in the film and music industry are fragmenting to reveal the darker reality of the human capacity to cause pain. It’s this process that reminds us that bad words and actions are ubiquitous, with the entertainment industry only serving as a zone of magnification for how temporary illusions of virtue are.

This is not to say that we are inherently bad, but rather an acknowledgement of the fact that, unavoidably, all of us have said or done bad things of a different scale- the mistakes of the rich and famous just have a greater staying power. In many ways, the deconstruction of the notion of artistic genius that obscures much judgement of problematic or criminal actions is a blessing.

A year on from Rebecca Hall, Timothée Chalamet, and Selena Gomez’s denouncement of Woody Allen and declaration that they would donate their salaries from his (now shelved) film A Rainy Day in New York to more formal campaign movements such as Time’s Up, we can begin to recognise the force of good that public scrutiny can be in amplifying the voice of survivors like Dylan Farrow.

With our words we don’t hesitate to condemn abusers, promoting #MeToo posts on social media and tweeting ‘Sis, you’re cancelled’ when we come across celebrities’ offensive Facebook statuses from 2012. It makes us feel like we are pulling our weight in the march for a more equal society, and I think it is fair to say that most people find satisfaction in being perceived as morally dignified. Nevertheless, we still engage in the artistic creations of abusers and those accused of morally reprehensible statements and actions- the $650 million worldwide gross of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is a testament to how our principles don’t always align with our patterns of consumption.

J.K. Rowling, a writer who captivated generations with illusions of the latent magical power that every child possessed, polluted the enchantment of the wizarding universe for many with her relentlessly active social media presence and poor casting choices. Her ‘likes’ on Twitter of transphobic posts scorning trans women of not occupying a proper place in the supposedly accepting community of womanhood last autumn provoked a fierce outcry from social media users, and for good reason. The Harry Potter franchise taught many the values of compassion, loyalty, and empowerment of the underdog, which is why the perceived transgression of these lessons elicits so much disappointment. To what extent should we ‘cancel’ her for this action? Is complicity as harmful/ morally reprehensible as active participation?

Luckily, Rowling has taken the liberty of entangling herself in a range of moral discussions to help us inform our answers to these questions. Her penchant to retroactively represent minority groups in her franchise has sparked much criticism; empty and unsubstantiated statements like ‘Dumbledore was gay’ or ‘There were plenty of Jewish people in Hogwarts’ or ‘Hagrid is a practising Sunni Muslim’ (the latter a prediction) are blatant attempts to continue to capitalise from a pretty white-washed franchise using an increasingly intersectionality-minded audience. However, a questionable piece of representation that Rowling actually delivered on was the almost comical ‘The huge snake in Chamber of Secrets was actually an enslaved Asian woman’ in The Crimes of Grindelwald. Whether Rowling’s publicists are enamoured with her genius brain or perhaps at this point too far gone to question her decisions is not our issue to discuss. However, what is interesting is Rowling’s choice to defend this casting decision, justifying it through citing the ‘Naga’ as inspiration for Nagini. This is probably sincere, yet indicative of a cultural sensitivity yet to be learnt by many, regarding the portrayal of already woefully underrepresented groups.
More sinister is Rowling’s defence of her choice to maintain the casting of Johnny Depp as Grindelwald as not only being ‘comfortable sticking with the original casting, but genuinely happy’. Despite Amber Heard’s accusations of physical and emotional abuse, this unapologetic endorsement of Depp by both writer and audience is emblematic of the fact that we live in age where we maintain a facade of social justice online whilst simultaneously fuelling an abuser-ridden box office. ‘Wokeness’, initially a term referring to self-awareness among African American communities, has now become a key constituent of the self-righteous illusions we perform on social media. What use is empowering rhetoric if it changes our minds but not our habits?

Perhaps a while ago, a great amount of people would have insisted on separating the ‘art’ from the ‘artist’, yet now, with a greater appreciation of the fact that the two will always constitute each other, it becomes harder to engage in what once would have been great pieces of media. The hands with which Depp so convincingly gestures could have been the same to have purposefully caused physical harm, and the issue is that as a society, we selectively choose forget the latter.

Watching Weinstein movies like Pulp Fiction, or as more recently discussed, listening to music by R Kelly, in a way are acts of undue forgiveness. Through perpetuating the cultural hegemony of the artist by virtue of their art is to grant artists clemency that we do not have the authority to grant. Recent tides have shown that our behaviour has changed towards the consumption of media produced by abusers and that social media outcry has had an impact on the visibility of victims that cannot be overstated.

However, there are still blurred lines between what we consider redeemable and irredeemable. We cannot overestimate the harm that ‘cancel culture’ can cause, through retroactively punishing people for ideas they have now changed, or holding celebrities to standards of consistent perfection that we would not expect of ourselves. After all, who are we to judge people’s past actions when we might find similar content upon scrolling in the unforgivable depths of the accounts of our online infancy?
We could perhaps find a balance between maintaining expectations of celebrities to uphold the common moral virtues, and being willing to concede to the fact that nobody in the history of fame, or indeed the world, has been perfect. We are, after all, ultimately all human beings. But to what extent do we refuse the works of people who have ruined lives of other human beings through their actions? Do we stop singing along to ‘Ignition’ in the club, or stop going to see the next installment of the Fantastic Beasts series in the vain hope that Rowling is going to adequately follow up Harry Potter?

Most importantly, to what extent do we perform righteousness to ourselves and the world by condemning the art of these people? Whatever the answer, the truth remains that in order to limit the power of hurtful actions of ruinous people, we must wake up from the illusion that artistic genius is exclusive to the rich and famous.

Power Up

Cherwell Fashion
-
0
Power Up

In 2016, part-time receptionist Nicola Thorp was sent home by her supervisor after arriving at work in flat shoes. She was told that anything below ‘two-inches of heel’ was ‘unacceptable.’ When she refused to comply with such rules, she was sent home from accounting firm PwC without pay.

Since Nicola’s story broke headlines, the issue of workwear – particularly womens’ workwear – has gathered momentum, with Nicola and 150,000 women petitioning for a law against compulsory gendered uniforms. The UK government rejected a change in the current legislation, but did propose to change dress code guidelines. Regardless, Nicola’s story has stirred up huge backlash. Women took to Twitter, posting photos of their alternative workwear that defied gendered regulations.

At a quick Google search of ‘workwear,’ all results apply gender labels to the word: ‘Women’s workwear’ and ‘Ladies Smart Clothing’ flash up in large block letters.

Google’s algorithm may not have caught up yet, but workwear has been pushed beyond the confines of the suit, blazer, pencil skirt, high heels, and so on. As students, we are poised as the next generation to enter the workplace. Whilst the familiar office-wear silhouettes are far from disappearing, the movement in breaking down gender barriers has already begun. The style and form of power outfits is already changing: Captain Marvel, due for release this April, sees the distinct, tight-fit silhouette of the superhero suit reappropriated for Marvel Studios’ first female lead. This January, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became the youngest woman to join the United States Congress, often recognised as an embodiment of anti-corporate politics and previously-overlooked female power. Hopefully, this will be a ripple-effect that extends into everyday office-wear. In a nod to these prospects, Cherwell Fashion explores androgynous workwear in a celebration of its liberating and empowering potential.

Flattering fashion: fiction or reality?

Sophie Grapentin
-
0
Flattering fashion: fiction or reality?

‘Black slims you down. Tall girls shouldn’t wear heels. Ruffled bikini tops balance out small breasts.’

Disguised as friendly advice, the mantras go on and on. Every magazine, online blog, Instagram page or YouTube channel that is in some way related to fashion has potentially done something on ‘flattering fashion’ or dressing for your body type at some point. This is undergoing a drastic intervention.

The magic words are now ‘body positivity.’ A popular little comic BuzzFeed posted on Instagram shows a girl getting dressed while instructing: “Step 1: Put on whatever the fuck makes you happy. That’s it!”. Cosmopolitan articles are explaining which fashion rules should be broken. From every side it seems that the rules of fashion we grew up with have become grossly outdated.

But they certainly aren’t entirely bad. What I love about fashion – and I am sure most people do too – is the power to transform, to create illusions. I adore that a perfectly placed seam can make me seem taller, that shoulder pads give me an edge I don’t normally have, that a belt accentuates my waist.

What is more important than the effect these rules teach you to achieve, is how they force you to get to know your body. Do you know your measurements? Your skin undertone? Your proportions? Most people do not. And this makes them victims of an arbitrary sizing system, colour trends and cuts they do not understand. Did you know that the sizing system is updated every few years? Have you ever noticed how drastically they vary from brand to brand and country to country? I’m a 38 in France, a 36 in Germany, a XS in the US and a size 4 in England. In a German pattern from the 70s, I’m a 42. Is any of these numbers more true than the rest? No. They do not mean anything. Centimetres or inches however, those are precise and stay the same everywhere.

The problem is not in knowing the basic facts of your dressing canvas – your body – the problem is in the rhetoric these makeover stories employ. Breasts are suddenly breasts that are ‘too small,’ thighs that are ‘too big,’ stomachs that are ‘too wobbly,’ arms that are ‘too flabby.’ But what are these comparatives measured against? And by whose standards? In calling for one norm, they fail to appreciate the diverse range of body types and the different forms of beauty in each.

Whatever fashion guidelines and tips you’re reading, whether it is gently suggesting that this top will make your arms look more ‘toned’ or straight up telling you to avoid shorts, they always make it seem as if something is wrong with your body. That there is a problem which the ‘right’ clothes can fix.

This whole concept is a bizarre perversion of priorities. Clothes exist to serve your body, and your body never has to change for them. But being aware of the body as a canvas for self-expression through fashion is incredibly empowering. So, use all the advice you’ve read or been told as a chance to learn about yourself – with no judgement but gentle curiosity.

But please, there is no use in wearing yellow just because it is in fashion. If you absolutely have to, at least keep it away from your face and choose yellow wellies.

 

1...720721722...2,582Page 721 of 2,582

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 Jamie Ashley