Blog Page 993

Life Divided: Unpacking

Rosa Thomas: For

Unsurprisingly, if you ask most people at Oxford, they would not put unpacking six times a year at the top of their list of favourite university traditions. I’ll admit it, perhaps packing doesn’t have the hedonism of trashing, the sophistication of matriculation or the rich history of Merton’s ‘Time Ceremony’, but I’m willing to bet that the process has had much more of an effect on your time at Oxford than you might think.

For one thing, packing provides a glimmer of hope that you may, just for once, have your life organised. For the other seven weeks of term I find myself living in a constant state of chaos. By second week clothing will be rammed in my desk drawer, pens will be in biscuit tins, and, my socks will never be seen again. I become accustomed to a life where seeing the floor is like meeting someone who likes Lola Lo’s; rare and fascinating. But, for the first blissful days of term everything is perfectly organised.

Unpacking is my sole chance in eight weeks of madness to have my life together, find the things I’ve lost and remember that normal people do not keep their tutorial notes inside a spare pillow case on the floor. The pillow case may be a rather extreme example. However, I do refuse to believe that every Oxford student manages to keep their rooms in perfect, regimented order, all term.

You may complain about packing, but I’m guessing you’ve found more than a few important old essays in the great 0th week unpack. The process doesn’t just allow you to organise your life, it makes Oxford feel like home. It’s hard to deny that your college room feels quite different every time you’ve finished unpacking. I may be a university cliché, but after taking out my fairy lights, sticking up my photos and unloading my varied cushion collection, term doesn’t feel quite so daunting, and home never feels quite so far away.

Jamie Onslow: Against

Each time I return to Oxford after the vac, my feelings of almost pant-wetting excitement are tempered by the knowledge that before I can gaily dive into the fun-filled bonanza that is life at our university, I must first go through the ordeal of unpacking. The first item to be unpacked is, in fact, myself. As is common practice, at the end of every Oxford term the head porter rubs me down with goose fat and pushes me into a tight-fitting wooden box. Any remaining space is filled with items, read yet mostly-unread, from my reading list.

The lack of light within the box precludes actually reading anything, and I instead absorb books through my feet and into my bloodstream, much like a phagocyte might absorb a suspicious-looking amoeba. However, just as a foetus knows when the time is ripe to slide forth into the world, as soon as term begins I instinctively slither out of my box. I writhe around naked on the floor, temporarily blinded by intense daylight, with half-absorbed Russian classics protruding out of my legs.

Luckily I am not alone, as much like the hatching of baby turtles, all undergraduates emerge from their boxes simultaneously, and thrash around on main quad until they can walk. Much as a new born calf soon hobbles to his feet, or a butterfly emerges from a cocoon, I am soon ready to undertake the more serious task of unpacking the various items that I use in my daily routine. As 0th week comes around I often consider staying within the oaky confines of my box. However, it is common knowledge that throughout history few have achieved greatness from within the confines of a greasy box, and so I reluctantly nibble my way out, ready for some learning.

OxFilm: your script

0

Getting the right script is a crucial first step in making any student film. It’s common for student filmmakers to decide that they want to make a film, and then immediately jump to the camera they want, the budget they’ll have, and the cool shots they want to incorporate—the story comes after, and it frequently shows in the final product.

So, first things first, write a script. It doesn’t need to be a summer blockbuster material—it can be as wacky as you want, but make sure it’s been redrafted enough times to have reached the necessary degree of polish. Remember, this script will end up on a screen, so if you feel like adding throwaway lines or a half-hearted conversation about the weather to fill some space, think again—every line counts!

While you’re at it, consider your poor audience in the cinema. Do they really want to sit through an avant-garde realisation of the experiences of a greenfly? Would you? Even if you don’t want the audience to enjoy your film—there could be other emotions you want to provoke—writing a script that tells a compelling story is essential to kickstart your project. Without a good script, there’s no point in filming.

Blind Date: The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more”

0

Priya Khaira-Hanks, 2nd year, English, St Catz

My evening with Jamie started and ended with gossip—at the beginning, we chatted about Gossip Girl, and, a few hours and drinks later, were exchanging juicy details about certain mutual acquaintances. Jamie also divulged to me what really happens at Christ Church: coming from a mere proletarian college, I was astounded that, instead of Freshers’ week, first years are told the dark secrets of privilege and made to sign a confidentiality agreement, promising never to let slip who drowned in champagne at that ball in the nineties. We exchanged our fatal flaws—for him, country music, for me, cheese—and the fact that neither of us can drive. The only way to cope with these inadequacies was to drink more, and I ended up embarking on an impassioned polemic about Holly and Phil on This Morning. And, if ranting about daytime TV isn’t winning date etiquette, I’m not sure what is.

First impression? Punctual!

Chat? 76% banter, 24% French Revolution

Personality? Destroyed my anti-ChCh prejudice

2nd date? Holly Willoughby is a hard act to beat

Jamie Horton, 2nd year, History, Christ Church

The fortune cookie I opened at dinner prior to the date (something about a lettuce wrap) didn’t provide me with the encouragement I was hoping for and so I ventured with some trepidation to Turf. Nevertheless, I was soon put at ease by Priya’s friendliness, and I really felt like I was making progress when my confessed admiration for country music got me likened to her mum. Sensing my bad boy image was under threat, I panicked somewhat and claimed to be running an Escobar-style drug cartel from my college room. Her lack of surprise that such an operation existed inside Christ Church said a lot. Whilst we were bonding over our lack of ability to drive, I felt the time was right for a high-risk, high-reward gambit. Unfortunately, the revelation that I lived next to the busiest bus route in Europe (Wilmslow Road, Manchester) proved not to be the winner I hoped it would be.

First impression? This might be quite fun

Chat? On point

Personality? Genuinely lovely!

2nd date? Not holding my breath

 

If you would like to go on a Blind Date, get in touch with the life editors

Warren Gatland selects controversial Lions squad for upcoming summer tour

0

British and Irish Lions Head Coach Warren Gatland has named a controversial squad for the upcoming Lions tour to New Zealand this summer.

The 41-man squad includes sixteen Englishmen, twelve Welshmen, eleven Irishmen, but only two Scots.

The appointment of Sam Warburton as captain was not a surprise, however, after a promotional photo of the Welsh flanker leaked online earlier this week.

He is seen as a steady hand by rugby coaches, and is only the second player, after England World Cup Winner Martin Johnson, to captain two Lions tours.

However, what has led to anger amongst fans is that Warburton will be joined by eleven other Welshman—who, on the whole, performed poorly in this year’s Six Nations. The selection of Leigh Halfpenny and Dan Biggar in particular seems to suggest that Gatland has also considered previous performances in his selection process of rugby players, not only their current form.

Despite this, Ken Owens, consistently seen as the underdog during his playing career for the Llanelli Scarlets and Wales, can be assured he has been selected purely on his extraordinary form during the Six Nations championship earlier this year.

While Welsh fans may complain that there are not even more of their countrymen in the squad, it will be hard for them not to acknowledge the brilliant form of many English players in the squad: Mako Vunipola’s power will add intensity to the pack, Owen Farrell’s flair and kicking game will test the New Zealand defence, and Anthony Watson’s pace will be a necessity if the Lions hope to break the ferocious All Black gameline.

Yet, the squad’s announcement also produced more major shocks. The first was the exemption of England captain Dylan Hartley. The England captain’s omission means that he is the third consecutive England captain not to have been named in the Lions touring party, following Steve Borthwick and Chris Robshaw’s omissions in 2009 and 2013. While his aggression and competitiveness often gets the better of him, the fact that Hartley captained England to a record-equalling streak of 18 matches without defeat suggests his omission is unfair and strange.

As well as this, notable English players Mike Brown, Joe Launchbury and George Ford were absent from Gatland’s Lions squad, while Ben Te’o, who made his Test debut in 2016, was included in the bold squad announcement on April 19.

While the inclusion of eleven Irishman such as Jonny Sexton, Rory Best and Conor Murray will be welcomed across the home nations, Scottish fans have rightly objected to Gatland’s decision to include only two players from their impressive Six Nations campaign: Stuart Hogg and Tommy Seymour.

Speaking on BT Sport’s Facebook page after the announcement, former Ireland captain and Lions player Brian O’Driscoll conceded that Scotland were unlucky not to have more players in the touring party: “Beat Ireland, beat Wales—if I was Scottish I would feel hard done by. It’s the first time since 1908 they haven’t had a representative in the pack.”

Overall, Gatland and his coaching staff surprised the public and the world’s media. The Lions face a daunting task: attempting to topple the greatest rugby side (perhaps even the greatest sporting side) the world has ever seen. On top of this, the demanding schedule facing the British players has raised concerns: only this week former All Blacks and Lions coach Sir Graham Henry described the 10-match schedule as ‘suicidal’.

As well as this, the 2011 World Cup-winning coach has warned Gatland that Wales’ 40-7 humiliation against the Chiefs in Hamilton in 2016 shows many of the pitfalls of playing midweek matches against Super Rugby outfits.

The last few months of British rugby have been incredibly exciting, and if the drama surrounding this selection is anything to go by, the Lions tour itself should be one of the best in recent memory.

The Lions will arrive in New Zealand on Wednesday, May 31, four days before their first match against the New Zealand Provincial Barbarians in Whangarei on June 3.

The full squad is as follows:

Forwards: Rory Best (IRL), Jack McGrath (IRL), Dan Cole (ENG), Ross Moriarty (WAL), Taulupe Faletau (WAL), Sean O’Brien (IRL), Tadhg Furlong (IRL), Peter O’Mahoney (IRL), Jamie George (ENG), Ken Owens (WAL), Iain Henderson (IRL), Kyle Sinckler (ENG), Maro Itoje (ENG), CJ Stander (IRL), Alun Wyn Jones (WAL), Justin Tipuric (WAL), George Kruis (ENG), Billy Vunipola (ENG), Courtney Lawes (ENG), Mako Vunipola (ENG), Joe Marler (ENG), Sam Warburton (WAL)

Backs: Dan Biggar (WAL), Jack Nowell (ENG), Elliot Daly (ENG), Jared Payne (IRL), Jonathan Davies (WAL), Jonathan Sexton (IRL), Owen Farrell (ENG), Tommy Seymour (SCO), Leigh Halfpenny (WAL), Ben Te’o (ENG), Robbie Henshaw (IRL), Anthony Watson (ENG), Stuart Hogg (SCO), Rhys Webb (WAL), Jonathan Joseph (ENG), Liam Williams (WAL), Conor Murray (IRL), Ben Youngs (ENG), George North (WAL)

Irresponsible escapists and the architecture of power

0

Why do schools, prisons, and mental asylums look so strikingly similar? This question has troubled intellectuals from Franz Kafka to Michel Foucault. The ‘architecture of power’, with its drab hallways and isolating cells, seems almost ideally designed to sap its subjects of individuality. Yet reality refuses to comply. Far from reforming their charges, these institutions all too often instil in us a profound hatred of conformity, an anti-authoritarian recalcitrance—a desire, in a word, for escape.

People with a mission to ‘save the world’ often dismiss escapism as a distraction from serious work.

In a less troubled time, they say, they might indulge in the frivolities of sex, drugs, and art—but what we need right now is responsibility. Only by submitting our desires to a higher purpose can we advance toward a decent society.

Don’t believe me? Then look at how the views of cultural conservatives and many left-wing radicals converge on pornography, gangsta rap, and offensive humour, to name only a few of their mutual bugbears. These sources of pleasure are ‘sinful’, or ‘problematic’, and they ought to be controlled. If shame fails to keep us from degrading ourselves, say the champions of responsible progress, then we might need rules to regulate these dangerous forms of escapism.

And make no mistake: from the public moralist’s point of view, escapism is dangerous. Some of the most liberating changes in our everyday lives were made possible by escapists.

The advocates of responsibility (and its natural partner, respectability) have won important fights of their own, which I don’t mean to belittle. In their struggles to improve the world, however, they have often stood in the way of very real improvements brought about by the urge to escape.

The protestors who burned their draft cards at the height of the Vietnam War, the hippies who dropped acid and slept with total strangers in Golden Gate Park, and the gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transfolk who pelted the police with rocks outside the Stonewall Inn—were they being responsible?

Of course not. They were breaking the rules, writing better ones, escaping into their own lives, their own bodies, their own pleasures. But in doing so, they battled for basic human freedoms which many of us now take for granted. In much of the developed world, conscription is unthinkable. It’s alright to have sex without any thought of marriage—and in a growing number of states and cities, you can now smoke marijuana without punishment. And while there is still progress to be made in the acceptance of queer people, who could deny that we are freer today than we were a few decades ago? As I see it, ‘irresponsible escapists’ of various kinds have made the world a much better place.

This is not to say that responsibility is a bad thing, or that we should spend our whole lives ‘running from reality’. There is a place for marches, speeches, campaigns—and for people to organise them. The world needs leaders to make certain lasting changes.

Take the struggles of the civil rights era. Very few people alive today would argue that Martin Luther King’s leadership was anything short of heroic. Even by the standards of those who opposed him, King was a man of sound moral convictions and a publically sterling character. (We may ignore his private hypocrisies, which were not revealed until after his death and did not detract from his work.) His respectable conduct and status as a Protestant minister bolstered his arguments and drew many supporters who might otherwise have found his message threatening.

Even so, escapism remains a powerful force of transgression. It shouldn’t surprise us that The Lord of the Rings was the bible of ‘60s counterculture. Nor should we find it strange that the great socialist William Morris was also the father of modern fantasy fiction, or that the early leaders of the Labour Party (John Robert Clynes especially) drew inspiration from the medievalist art critic, John Ruskin.

So it’s no wonder that we fill our lives with ‘escape hatches.’ These can take many forms: as fiction, music, poetry, artwork, sex, dance, gaming—the list could continue without end. What they all have in common is the power to challenge the ordinary, to lift us out of our day-to-day boredom and show us new possibilities, new feelings, new worlds.

A life spent apart from the hard reality would likely leave most of us miserable. Huxley’s Brave New World comes to mind, as does Homer’s island of lotus-eaters. But a life without escapism is an even bleaker prospect: the windowless walls of a prison cell, perfectly built from the slabs of ‘hard work’ and the mortar of ‘responsibility’.

 

Is travel the only way we can set ourselves free?

0

I am sitting in Bratislava Airport, around the beginning of January. It is incredibly warm here, which is quite ironic given how freezing cold it is outside. I used the last of my euros to order a cheap coffee and, like pretty much all of the coffee I have drunk here, it really isn’t great. All the coffee I have ordered has come with a little glass of water which is nice, I guess, although the coffee never seems to be hot enough and tastes far from the artisanal joy of Brew or The Missing Bean to which my tastebuds have become accustomed.

But I deviate—where was I? I’m sitting in this weird little cafe thing off the side of the airport departure lounge. There is no complex shopping structure, bendy corridors and sections or hoards of holidaymakers, there is simply this one large hangar, a few shops hanging off the ends, and that is it. There are hardly any people here at all, no queue at security, and only a handful of flights leaving today. Five, as I count them. An airport in the capital city of a major (ish, but certainly getting there) European country on a standard working day evening and there are only five flights for the rest of the day. Maybe everybody flies from Vienna around here. I don’t know, but it’s definitely a tad bizarre.

The more I contemplate it, the emptiness of this place really is rather lovely. There’s the element of emptiness in a place one expects to be busy which is, on the face of it, a little bit suspicious. I was reminded a little of a short story by Stephen King called The Langoliers in which a plane lands into an empty airport, which turns out to be in an alternative reality where monster things are coming to get you. Or the universe is collapsing in or something. I can’t really remember. Would recommend it though. At the same time, the emptiness is quite beautiful. The quiet allows me to hear my own thoughts, find inner peace (whatever that means) and be genuinely relaxed in a sort of place never usually associated with such a thing. It’s surprising, but certainly welcome. The more I think about it, throughout my trip here I have experienced a strange form of refreshing happiness.

This feeling certainly stems from the anonymity I have here and the ability to genuinely be away from everything, but it goes further than that. The potential of who I could be has not been at all been limited by anyone. I cannot think of a single person I know in this city, I do not speak a word of Slovak: to the people here I could be almost anything and them to me. I could have whatever name I choose, be from any country, do any job. An infinite number of possibilities exists about me and about my story, I am not confined by the bog standard routines and practises of home. It is the art of introducing myself that makes this potential go away. It doesn’t matter whether I tell the truth or if I lie: simply saying something makes that something the image of who I am and crystallises potential into something real.

I know that, deep down, I am just me. That person I spend all of my days and all of my nights with, the person with whom I share my most intimate thoughts, happiness and depression with, just me. The person to whose soul I talk and confide in, the person who’s senses show me the world, the person who will be there through love and heartbreak, the person who feels my hopes and dreams and the person who comforts my failures. It is just me. I can’t escape me when I am with people that know me, when I am in familiar settings and ticking through ordinary life. But sitting here, right now, I can. I could be anybody. Up until the point here I start talking and bring into existence a model of my character I feel as if I have escaped. The trap laid down by the most basic elements of conversation is evaded, for a temporary amount of time I am much closer to true freedom than at most other points of life.

So is freedom about money, power, or prestige? Is it contingent upon our friendships and loved ones, does it rely on safety and security, or is it about not tapping into potential? Bratislava freedom is clearly not a sustainable strategy—clearly nobody would want to live without meaningful relationships with others and clearly humankind needs them to prosper. Maybe, though, escaping them from time to time is a refreshing, healthy and necessary way to remind ourselves what truer freedom feels like.

Ageing under the spotlight

0

The film industry has been wracked with controversy in recent years, with accusations of discrimination flying left, right and centre. From the #oscarssowhite trend of 2016 to Patricia Arquette calling out Hollywood’s wage disparity in her Oscar acceptance speech in 2015, we are all finally starting to wake up to the fact that the seemingly perfect and polished celebrity world is just as infiltrated with prejudice as every other aspect of society. Despite our societal tendency to position our celebrity idols under a microscope, it is only in recent years that issues such as ageism have really been highlighted in the media.

The very nature of celebrity is rooted in admiration, all too often aesthetic admiration. When we watch a film or listen to music, we often don’t recognise the complexity of the people involved, instead reducing them to a simplistic idea of straightforward beauty. Ageing complicates this admiration. We are used to categorising celebrities as someone to emulate, but when the first grey hairs and laughter lines appear, suddenly they become a bit less god-like, and all too human for our liking.

Both Hollywood and the music industry are guilty of perpetrating these ideas. Madonna is a prime example of a woman who can seemingly do nothing right these days. Her onstage kiss with Drake is an obvious illustration of the double standards she faces. While other factors are naturally at play when considering the incident—principally Drake’s lack of consent—the point remains that a lot of the visceral disgust voiced on Twitter and other social media platforms was related to the age gap between Madonna and Drake. While in theory we reject the convention which teaches us to be appalled by a relationship between an older woman and younger man, the legacy of such a heavy cultural influence is hard to shake.

Madonna resolutely refuses to relinquish her sex appeal, and rightly so. She was among the first to embrace her own sexuality at a time when few female artists did, and as a result has become a feminist icon. Rather than retreating to ballads and black dresses like many singers of her age, she continues to joyfully prance around in bodysuits and leotards, throwing her legs above her head in a way which many in their twenties would envy. Yet her performances are often figured as grotesque, a laughing stock, or a warning to those also considered ‘over the hill’.

In 2015, Madonna went so far as to accuse BBC Radio 1 of ageism for their refusal to add her new single to their playlist. The response from the station was that they were trying to lower the average age of listeners, and that most Madonna fans were in their thirties and forties. A fair response perhaps, yet even on Radio 2, a station aimed at over 35s, Madonna’s single was only begrudgingly added to the C playlist, meaning that its airtime was minimal. Paradoxically, it was pointed out that Radio 1 often play songs by older artists, listing David Guetta (49) and Paul McCartney (74) as examples. For starters, it is significant that both of these artists are male, but also that the only Paul McCartney song that has been featured on the Radio 1 playlist in decades is ‘FourFiveSeconds,’ a collaboration with Kanye West and Rihanna—two much younger artists.

The backlash to Madonna’s complaint reflects the all too conventional negative attitude towards assertive women. While undeniably a problem for all women, particularly in the workplace, the stereotype of subservience affects older women to an even greater extent. Being a ‘Girl Boss’ is becoming trendier and trendier, as young women are encouraged to go after the careers and lifestyles that they deserve. However, the aspirational image of the ‘have it all’ career woman is notably restricted to the young and glamorous. While the idea of a young and stylish business woman demanding the raise she deserves fills most of us with ‘you go girl’-esque admiration, a woman in her fifties doing the same thing would likely provoke discomfort in many. While Jennifer Lawrence was applauded for her open letter criticising wage disparity in Hollywood, Madonna’s claim that her poor chart performance was the result of discrimination was treated as the whining of an old woman who can’t let go.

It is perhaps this differing standard applied to men and women which is the most disturbing aspect of ageism in our society. In a recent interview on Radio 2 promoting their new film ‘Going in Style,’ Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman both expressed their happiness at the number of roles they are still receiving in their seventies and eighties respectively. They proclaimed it as a sign that ageism in Hollywood is really not such an issue, with Caine even exclaiming triumphantly: “I’m not sitting round watching Coronation Street!” While I’m glad that Freeman and Caine are continuing to have their talents recognised and appreciated well past conventional retirement age, what the industry really needs is respected artists such as them to acknowledge and call out disparities. Their blindness to the fact that they are the exception, rather than the rule, not only excuses, but perpetrates harmful views.

Meryl Streep is one of the few high profile individuals in the film industry who does actively call out the ageism and sexism that she experiences. Although some may be sceptical of Streep’s claims of discrimination, due to her continuing relevance in Hollywood, she is vocal about how much harder she has had to fight for these opportunities since turning forty. In 2011, she confessed to Vogue Magazine that upon exiting her thirties she was only offered three roles–all witches–astutely noting that “once women passed childbearing age they could only be seen as grotesque on some level”. But unlike Freeman and Caine, who refuse to acknowledge the issues present in their industry, Streep is actively trying to solve the problem. She is helping to fund a screenwriting lab for women over forty, in the hope that diversifying representation behind the camera will propagate a similar growth onscreen.

While it is of course true that male actors will often face a decline in opportunities as they age, perhaps restricted to roles such as ‘senile old man’ or similar, it is undeniable that female actors suffer this fate to a much greater degree. The collective decision taken by film industry professionals, and even viewers themselves, that a woman is no longer at her peak attractiveness, epitomises the very objectification which the majority of us so vocally condemn. The recent Women’s Marches across the world demonstrate that feminism is a very prescient issue, and one being taken seriously, so why is that as a society, we still enable and encourage ageist attitudes towards women in popular culture? The fact is that films with female leads over forty don’t make as much money at the box office. Of course there are notable exceptions such as The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, but movies fronted by lesser known older actors often fall flat. Although our tastes are obviously moulded to a degree by the film industry itself, the influence goes both ways, and so by supporting films featuring older actors, we can help to foster a culture in which ageing is not something to be dreaded in our own lives, or disgusted by in others’ lives.

It is the idea of the female actor being intended for titillation which perpetrates this problem. Of course we are all guilty of objectifying our favourite celebrities to a certain degree, but this sense of ownership goes much further than teenage girls wondering what it would be like to kiss Zayn Malik. There is a cultural expectation that a female celebrity owes her followers something, her sex appeal translating into a currency of success. While male celebrities become ‘legends’ and ‘icons’ as their conventional attraction wanes, women struggle to make a similar transition. Their value is irrevocably tied to their appearance, and once their appearance ceases to be pleasing to their audience, the unspoken contract between performer and viewer is infringed.

And it’s not as if this objectification is even purely sexual. The attitudes of straight women towards their favourite female celebrities can often be just as harmful, particularly in the Instagram age, in which we can follow and fawn over their every move. The rise of social media has fostered trends such as the ever present ‘#goals’ hashtag, an idea which has always existed, but has only recently been explicitly named. It’s more than just petty jealousy. In fact, it’s taking active pleasure in the beauty, glamour, or success of someone you admire. But when your favourite female celebrity becomes a bit less #goals and a bit more grizzled, then why bother watching them anymore?

After all, whatever the content of a movie, the primary goal is ultimately escapism. For many viewers, this manifests itself in an appreciation of the seemingly perfect lives of its stars, as we perversely revel in the levels of glamour and beauty which our own lives can never hope to attain. Such admiration in itself is not necessarily harmful—society has always orientated itself by its idols. However, it does propagate the idea that ‘perfection’ and hence, happiness, is only attainable between the ages of twenty and forty.

As a society we still consider women, especially beautiful women, to be flat and one-sided, with little more to offer than being aesthetically pleasing. Whether consciously or subconsciously, we all have an inherent discomfort with women who are perceived as ‘unattractive’, a bias which we must do our best to fight. Perhaps the unpopularity of older female celebrities simply reflects our own fears of ageing—the idea that if we don’t see it reflected in the media then we can pretend it will never happen to us—but this attitude in itself is deeply harmful. The infiltration of ageist attitudes in popular culture reflects a wider obsession with beauty, and a concerning cultural shift towards superficiality. Prejudice in the film and music industries makes a significant contribution to this, filtering down to us, and infiuencing our own ideas of beauty and happiness. Perhaps the first step to developing more healthy attitudes towards our own appearances is to appreciate the performances of older people in the film and music industries.

Oxford shrimp named after Pink Floyd

0

A new species of shrimp discovered in Oxford has been named after Pink Floyd.

The Synalpheus pinkfloydi, named for the band who reached the peak of their fame in the 1970s, was discovered by a team comprising Sammy de Grave of the University’s Natural History Museum, as well as Dr Arthur Anker from UFG, Goais, Brazil, as lead author, and Professor Kristin Hultgren of Seattle University as the contributing geneticist.

De Grave told Cherwell that the naming was logical, as a “reference to the pink claw,” though he was quick to add that the “the noise it makes… was exaggerated by the media”.

On the shrimp’s character, de Grave said: “It’s a pretty small species (1-2 cm), so the snap certainly will not kill or stun a fish.”

De Grave has something of a reputation for his out-of-the-box names for the species he helps to discover, once naming a new shrimp after the lead singer of the Rolling Stones, Mick Jagger.

Asked about the aptness of this name, de Grave said: “The genus [was] characterised by an enlarged male appendix, and we continued the sexual innuendo by naming [it] E.jaggeri, specifically in reference to the Rolling Stones song ‘I Can’t Get No Satisfaction’.”

Doctor Who’s ‘Sonic Screwdriver’ included in Oxford Dictionary

0

While it has been a device synonymous with the Doctor for five decades, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has finally included ‘Sonic Screwdriver’ in its latest edition.

It first appeared in the show in 1968 during ‘Fury from the Deep’ with second Doctor, Patrick Troughton, when he used it to open a hatch on a gas pipeline.

The addition coincides with the premiere of tenth season of the show on Saturday, 15 April.

According to a post in the OxfordWords blog: “Although the revised, third-edition text of the OED entry for sonic adj. won’t be published until June, we can travel forward in time to take a sneak peek at this Whovian entry ahead of Doctor Who’s Series 10 premiere, ‘The Pilot’.

“The ‘Sonic Screwdriver’ is defined as: ‘a (hand-held) electronic device which uses sound waves to perform various mechanical and technical functions. Originally and chiefly in (or in reference to) the British television series Doctor Who.'”

Oxford Doctor Who Society President James Ashworth commented: “We at the Doctor Who Society are very pleased that the Sonic Screwdriver will finally be materialising in the OED ahead of its 50th Birthday next year.

“Now, when someone asks what that thingy the Doctor uses is called, the OED will give them the answer!”

Other Whovian words to be inducted into the OED ‘TARDIS’, ‘Dalek’ and ‘Cyberman’.

Oxford Academics elected to American Academy

0

Two Oxford academics, Professor Desmond King and Dr Keith Stewart Thomson, have been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, class of 2017.

The American Academy is one of the US’ oldest learned societies and independent policy research centres. Membership is nominated and elected by peers within the Academy.

The Academy currently has a membership of 4900 Fellows and 600 Foreign Honorary Members, including over 250 Nobel laureates and over 60 Pulitzer Prize winners. Past members have included John Adams, Jawaharlal Nehru, Pablo Picasso, and astronomer Maria Mitchell.

“It is definitely an honour and a pleasant surprise,” Professor Desmond King told Cherwell.

“My work focuses on the US executive politics and racial inequality in America, which might have been of interest to American Academy members in the political science department,” Professor King added.

He is currently the Andrew Mellon Professor of American Government at Nuffield College, as well as an emeritus fellow at St John’s College.

Dr Keith Stewart Thomson is an emeritus professor of natural history at Oxford. He also served as the director of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, from 1998 to 2003.

Dr Thomson specialises in the study of the history of science and evolution.

The American Academy conducts research in four areas: humanities, arts, and education; science, engineering, and technology; global security and international affairs; and American institutions and the public good. It publishes the journal Dædalus and the magazine, the Bulletin.

The new class will be inducted at a ceremony on October 7, 2017, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.