Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 497

Hopes for a Future Cinema: Less Lonely Women, More Little Women

Eleanor Zhang
-
0
Hopes for a Future Cinema: Less Lonely Women, More Little Women

Cinema, just like all other industries, follows a trend. And right now, this trend is unmistakably associated with women – with celebrities wearing “Time’s Up x2” bracelets on the Golden Globes red carpet, and Harvey Weinstein traveling between New York and Los Angeles to face sexual assault charges, the support for females in the film industry is reaching a peak after the start of Me Too movement last year. 

By the end of this decade, women on screen are no longer little. From sci-fi franchises such as Wonder Woman and Star Wars, to blockbusters like Ocean’s 8 and Charlie’s Angels, female characters are finally taking the central spot, if not the entire space, on movie posters. They are strong and independent, sometimes gifted with beautiful muscles or a superpower, often very intelligent, and most importantly, unentangled by children and family – they appear as individuals on their own, surrounded by fellow female characters, and one or two male friends at most. They are fierce and brave, and they are lonely. The tidal wave of women-lead films is unstoppable this time, and if the trailers for the next few months of film releases are anything to go by, there will be loads more lonely women on screen at the start of this decade: Harley Quinn is breaking up with Joker, navigating a fresh start in life with an all-female team in Marvel’s Birds of Prey, and even Disney is emphasizing the solitary female in film for its younger audience with a new live-action Mulan film, wherein a young woman chooses to go to war as a man rather than be married off at home. 

But what good is a strong, independent female protagonist if she still has to dress up and borrow the male image? Painting over a previously popular idea of “little women” as wives and mothers, female protagonists today are now turned into lonely goddesses, who are not entitled to share any part in more traditional woman stuff at all – like Frozen’s Elsa, who has never once been associated with a male character, and chooses to stay away from home and family to live in an enchanted woods, or Star War’s Rey, whose male counterpart mustn’t live for more than a minute after they share a kiss, or else risk Rey’s status as a fixture on the “strong, independent woman” pedestal. But why should films double down so emphatically on the idea that these action goddesses are powerful, when what the world needs to be shown is that there is power even in the most ordinary, and littlest of women. And in the end, what is it we are trying to sell by showcasing a steady stream of heroines who aren’t allowed a happily-ever-after ending? Is it the idea that women can’t be strong if they are too traditionally feminine?

Rey starts and ends the saga alone (not counting droids). Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Lucasfilm Ltd.

The dichotomy between existing within a confining comfort zone and escaping into a solitary feminist quest leads us now towards a real standstill in terms of progress, for neither represents true liberation and freedom of choice. In Greta Gerwig’s new adaptation of Little Women, even the most strongly anti-marriage of female figures, Jo March, has now been given a chance to address this palpable struggle: “Women have minds and souls as well as hearts, ambition and talent as well as beauty, and I’m sick of being told that love is all a woman is fit for. I’m so sick of it. But… I am so lonely.” 

One thing worth acknowledging is that all change takes time. To stand on the cusp of gender equality almost necessarily entails being lonely, for in order to reshape the female image, you have to destroy the old stereotypes by distancing heroines from the men who put them in an identity box in the first place. We do this in the hope that a “Jane-Eyre”-ish journey would allow women to find and re-define themselves, to gain strength and immunity against the previous image of a woman helpless in love. New identities usually require solitude, and perhaps after the peace and quiet, the lonely Dianas and Elsas can one day afford to fall in love again, without being judged as weak and reliant. If men can share the screen and still be strong, why should it be any different for our female protagonists? To achieve real gender equality on screen, our many mighty loner goddesses will have to descend from mountaintops and ice castles, and turn back into little women again.

It is undeniable that female characters still need to strive for their fair share of acknowledgement in terms of professional ambition and leadership. According to the “It’s a Man’s (Celluloid) World” report by Dr. Martha M. Lauzen in 2018, which examines the portrayals of female characters in the top grossing films that year, male characters were more likely to be seen in work-related roles (64% vs. 44%), whereas females were more likely to be seen in life-related roles (48% vs. 30%). But the question is not whether women deserve strong working roles like men, but to what extent the often assumed association between the roles of “wife” or “mother” and  “weakness” is valid. A truly empowered female image on screen shouldn’t have to feature a goddess or a superhero. We need to nurture a commitment variety, which welcomes traditional female roles, like Nicole’s in Marriage Story, or Joan’s in Ordinary Love. A powerful female character shouldn’t have to choose between power and love, because true power means having a choice. 

Standing at the beginning of a new decade, I hope Regina King’s pledge at the 2019 Golden Globes will be fulfilled– that every cast and every production team will be made up of at least “50 percent women.” But even more exciting than achieving that fifty percent ratio, would be a popular cinema that featured little women as often as Black Widows and Harley Quinns– a screen where your Meg Marches can look your Jos in the eye and say: “Just because my dreams are different than yours, doesn’t mean they are unimportant.”  

Crewdates: Pros and Cons

Trudy Ross
-
0
Crewdates: Pros and Cons

When trying to explain the term ‘crewdate’ to my family and friends outside Oxford, I often struggle to find words which won’t bring to mind a riot-club-esque scene of rowdy and inconsiderate rich kids. Paying £15 to sit in a restaurant with a bottle of wine from Tesco (which you bought yourself), getting off your face as your friends chuck pennies at you and reveal your most embarrassing anecdotes, often showing a complete lack of respect for the waiting staff, might seem like something only students with too much money and too little sense of personal responsibility would spend their time doing. And maybe that’s true.

I can’t say I’m exactly proud to admit that I’ve been on a fair few crewdates in my short time at Oxford. But then again, from what I’ve experienced of them so far, I’m inclined to say they’re not all bad. Obviously it depends on whether a big group of people, a whole lot of alcohol and an even bigger lot of shouting is really your scene – and while a lot of uni students love that, I know to some people it sounds like hell. Even more important, however, is the way people choose to behave on crewdates. Everybody has the option to treat staff with respect, to refrain from making offensive comments, and to keep quiet about their friends’ personal issues when the sconces ensue. A dinner with a big group of people and some alcohol definitely doesn’t need to be a bad thing. There are upsides, despite the obvious downsides, and in this piece I’m going to look at whether the pros of crewdates can really be said to outweigh the cons, and vice versa.

Pro: Meeting new people

Sometimes it can be easy to get caught up in the insular nature of college life, and societies provide us with great opportunities to mix with people from all across the university. Even if it’s just a date between two different sports teams or societies from your college, you’re likely to end up chatting to people you might not usually speak to. I’d say this is definitely the number one pro when it comes to crewdates.

Con: Games ending in tears

Though sconcing is usually dismissed as ‘a bit of banter’, there’s usually about one or two sconces per crewdate that cross the line between friendly joking and downright bullying. This glorified version of ‘Never Have I Ever’ aims to target particular individuals; this is all well and good for those who aren’t bothered about their antics on some night out being shared for some laughs. And I’m sure quite a lot of the people who attend crewdates are okay with this – but having personal details of your sex life or relationships shared with the room is a very different matter. The more drunk people become, the harder they find it to decipher what is acceptable and what is not, and indeed this can also often end in some version of sexism or homophobia being included in sconces. Female students are sometimes slut-shamed, while boys can be bigged up by their mates for getting with X amount of girls in the room.

Pro: Games helping you get to know each other

Despite the questionable route sconcing or ABCing sometimes takes, it also has to be acknowledged that a lot of the time these games can be a fun way of getting to know people. Sconces can cause funny stories to arise and be shared round the table, and if A, the person delegated to choose what B does to C, is well meaning enough, this game too can give way to some laughs. The worst I’ve been made to do is change clothes with someone else, and personally I didn’t see this as anything more than some harmless fun. But much more importantly, I know that if I had said I was uncomfortable, the group I was with wouldn’t have pushed it any further or made me feel embarrassed.

Con: Intimidation

While I think very, very few people would go to a crewdate with the intention of intimidating other students, particularly those from younger years, this inevitably does tend to happen. Sconcing does involve a lot of exclusive inside jokes, leaving a lot of students in the dark, and freshers keen to be accepted might feel pressured to do something they aren’t comfortable with. It’s easy for me to say that I wouldn’t have felt pressured if I’d just told people how I was feeling, but some people would be afraid to do even that, worried about how it might make people think about them. And worse, some individuals probably would ridicule or pressure those students who weren’t happy to go along with the rules of their games.

Pro: Solid pres for Bridge

Um, so, this pro looks pretty trivial compared to some of the cons I’ve pointed out and that’s because, well, it is. Still, the difficulty of finding a venue big enough for a large group of people to pre in should not be underestimated; I know in my college fair-sized pres are often broken up by the dean and threats of fines.

Con: Disrespect for the restaurant and its staff

I honestly think it shows the absolute worst of Oxford when students are dismissive of waiters or show zero awareness of the fact that there are people who will have to clean up after them. This is NOT an essential part of any crewdate; even when you’re drunk, it’s not difficult to be polite to restaurant staff, or even to try to minimise the mess you create on your table. Yes, there will probably be a few pennies here and there, but you can try to pick most of these up for next time, and there’s no reason why you can’t eat your curry and drink your wine like any other civilised person.

Overall, I’m not one to advocate banning crewdates, but I would say it’s important for those who attend them to make an effort to dial down (or, actually, get rid of altogether) the cons I’ve mentioned. At the end of the day, crewdates can be a lot of fun, and people on them should be capable of creating an inclusive atmosphere. When dodgy things do occur, this is usually reflective of the wider uni drinking culture as a whole, rather than crewdates themselves. The ones I’ve been to have been pretty unproblematic, and it’s from other people that I’ve heard the majority of the stories of misogyny or carelessness. My view is that the bigger issue at hand is the kind of uni-night-out culture that leads to rude, entitled behaviour, and of course, this is no small issue.

I am going to be attending the last Cherwell crewdate of term this week, but I know that I’ll be conscious of my behaviour and its effect on other people. I also know that my fellow student journalists are a lovely lot who will make a big effort to avoid upsetting or disrespecting anyone. Hopefully then, we can avoid any kind of association with the riot club, and make it the kind of crewdate we want to see more of.

Lady Pat R. Honising: Frisky Friendships

Lady Pat R. Honising
-
0
Lady Pat R. Honising: Frisky Friendships

Dear Lady Pat,

I write to you, as you may expect, in a state of dire embarrassment, shame and confusion. 
As I’m sure you know, the barrier between friends and something more are sometimes a bit blurry: you live together, you cook together, you study together, you get pissed together, you cry together. You’re so close all the time and know people very well, sometimes too well.

That’s where the problem started, the other night my friend and I crossed this elusive invisible barrier to the other side of the friendship zone…

After a couple of glasses of wine, at a pretty tame formal, we ended up going back to my room to chill, and it turned into more than just a casual chat. The bed was too tempting, we started kissing, the clothes came off and then, we had sex. 

If anything the most confusing part of the whole experience is that we were only a little tipsy and we were definitely both sober enough to know that we knew we both wanted to. It was so good and tender and caring, didn’t feel just casual shag. 

Does this mean we actually have deeper feelings or we have a lot better sexual chemistry than we realised?
It’s been a couple of days and I haven’t seen him yet. Do we talk about it? Do we let it slide? What should I do? I don’t know how to act. 

Please please help me,
Jamie

Jamie, Jamie, Jamie

I do love a bit of friendship group scandal (it’s the drama Mick, I love it). A tipsy shag was probably the defining feature of my Oxford experience (back in the 60s of course), and they can be some of the best or some of the most painfully, horrifyingly, toe-curlingly awkward experiences of your life! Let’s hope it’s the first!

Jamie darling, I may be wrong, but it definitely feels like this had been in the works for a while. If it was tender and caring, it would suggest that this isn’t just you both getting some of the fourth week stress out through some… physical activity. It seems like there is something between you, even if it’s not something that you’d let yourself think about before. The first thing to do is figure out what you want. Just a friend? A casual now-and-again kind of thing? A full blown relationship? I know these are big scary questions, but it’s much better to figure it out now than in a month when things could have got very messy indeed.

The other side is of course, the feelings of the young man you’ve been fornicating with. Obviously the proper advice is to have a big adult conversation with him and explore how you feel but… I also wouldn’t be above asking a mutual friend if they can do a little bit of research on your behalf and figure out if you’re on the same page before you make a move/emphasise the friendship/try to hook up again. From the sounds of it you’re fairly open minded about the whole situation, so there’s no harm in figuring out what the possibilities might be.

In the immediate future though, I’d focus on that all-important first meeting. The main thing to do is act casual, even if you’re inwardly absolutely shitting it. Try not to ignore the subject altogether: you don’t want a big old elephant in the room to follow you around for the rest of your degree. Depending on how you feel, you could make a flirty remark or just a pally joke, but much better to deal with it before it becomes a big deal – better out than in, I always say. 

If you’re good enough friends to be having late night one-on-one chats, your friendship will be strong enough to get through this, regardless of whether it’s a one-off thing or more. Don’t worry darling, I’ve shagged literally hundreds of my friends (don’t tell my husband), and I’m rich, adored, and going strong!

Life laugh love,

Lady Pat R. Honising xxxxxx

‘Because I Can’: Remembering Diet Coke’s dystopian rebrand in our 2020 dystopia

Luca Demetriadi
-
0
‘Because I Can’: Remembering Diet Coke’s dystopian rebrand in our 2020 dystopia

‘Coca-Cola found a way to convince millennials to drink Diet Coke’ – Qartz.com.

‘An authentic, self-aware Diet Coke that is really inclusive’ – Danielle Henry, director of Coca-Cola marketing

‘Is Diet Coke’s marketing team from another planet?’ – TheDrum.com

On Christmas Day my extended family spent lunch loosely discussing generation classifications, in light of the ‘Okay Boomer’ memes. Am I a Millennial? Or Gen Z? Why should I care?

I didn’t care. But I spent the rest of the day yearning for a can of Feisty Cherry Diet Coke, one of the four new flavours that were released as part of the multi-million rebrand of the struggling soda in 2018. Sales had been down 4.3% the year before.

For those of you who haven’t had the pleasure of trying the Feisty Cherry DC, don’t underestimate it as a simply a diet version of cherry Coke. Feisty refers to the touch of chilli in the flavouring. It tastes weird, like leaving toothpaste in your mouth for too long – the same taste profile as a weak bleach.

Alongside Feisty Cherry, Coca-Cola launched Ginger Lime, Zesty Blood Orange (two boring flavours that I don’t wish to discuss), and Twisted Mango. The most powerful marketing machine in the world decided that ‘twisted’ was a suitable adjective to entice a consumer into buying their beverage. These flavours launched alongside a new can, taller and thinner, and, for the first time in three years, the drinks were marketed as an entity separate from the rest of the Coca-Cola family of drinks.

It was all very strange.

This was the company’s way of targeting their drink towards the ever-elusive ‘millennial’ – a demographic too busy drinking kombucha and working off student debt to buy a drink that a) everyone knows tastes worse than regular Coke, and b) everyone knows isn’t a ‘healthy’ alternative to anything. DC had lost its space in the market: gone were the days that New York supermodels would drink DC to maintain their figure, and ads featured a well-chiselled man removing a DC-sprayed shirt to reveal his abs at a sunny BBQ.

Why are you going to drink Diet Coke now? Because you fucking can, that’s why.

I have decided to transcribe the entire advert that accompanied the rebrand. Remember the Pepsi ad that tried using Kendell Jenner to end racism? This is the opposite of that:

*Chirpy music playing*

A quirky celebrity walking down the street: “Look – here’s the thing about Diet Coke:

*Opens can*

it’s delicious. It makes me feel good. Life is short. If you want to live in a yurt – yurt it up. If you wanna run a marathon, I mean, that sounds super hard, but okay! I mean, just do you, whatever that is. And if you’re in the mood for a diet coke – have a diet coke.”

*Cut to product*

Voiceover: “Diet Coke: because I can”.

Ah yes – fuck yurt-dwelling hippies who think the world is all acid and rainbows, and fuck that co-worker who won’t stop sharing the fundraiser for his marathon. DC was positioning itself as the antidote to its consumers’ nihilistic urges and did so with a passive aggressive smile. Stop trying to better yourself and the world around you – you’re going to die anyway; why waste your life mindlessly going nowhere on a treadmill?

Organic revenues of DC grew by 5% in the following quarter. Coca-Cola had accidentally sliced open the main artery of our epoch: a lurking fear that everything is meaningless. Post-trump, post-Brexit, post-rock&roll, post-truth – Coca-Cola decided to build the drink’s brand around not giving a fuck anymore.

This was capitalism becoming self-aware, and, to be honest, I kind of like it. We’re embedded in the current system and we’re going to keep seeing ads wherever we go: in a market where every corporation is trying to emulate the kitsch of a John Lewis Christmas ad, or the franchising of the Go Compare Man (let me add post-Avengers to the moodboard) – Coca-Cola’s approach was refreshing. A quietism of despair that you can drink – and with zero calories!

One billion animals burned to death in Australia last month; the Royal Family are offering asylum to a paedophile; all the good celebrities are dead; and Mars, once we get there, will only be for the rich. Soon there’s going to be nothing left to do but crack open a can of Twisted Mango and watch the world end.

Bernie Sanders’ brother campaigns in Oxford

Luke Dunne
-
0
Bernie Sanders’ brother campaigns in Oxford

As Bernie Sanders ran out winner at the New Hampshire primaries on Tuesday, his brother Larry Sanders held an event encouraging Americans living abroad to vote for the Democratic frontrunner in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.

The event took place as Democrats voted Bernie top of the popular vote in the New England state. Larry was keen to talk up the significance of Bernie’s success so far in the primary campaign, “Bernard’s candidacy is a moment in history that represents a fundamental shift in American politics.”

“The movement behind him is unparalleled in modern political history and I hope that Americans living overseas take this opportunity to make their voices heard and vote in the Democrats Abroad Global Primary.”

The Primary itself will begin on Tuesday 3rd March, known colloquially in the U.S as ‘Super Tuesday’, as 14 states go to the polls.

It will run for a week, until Tuesday 10th March. Larry spoke alongside Oxford city councillor Hosnieh DjafariMarbin and the Labour Party’s national Green Deal campaign founder Aliya Yule.

He himself was a city councillor for the Green Party in Oxford for 8 years, and ran as the Green Party candidate in Oxford East in 2018.

He is also the Green Party health and social care spokesperson. Not straying from his typically environmental focus, Larry went on to speak about the Green New Deal and the ecological focus of the 2020 election.

As well as Sanders decrying Big Oil, stating “the oil and gas people have known for decades what they’ve been doing to the world”, his accompanying speakers stressed the severity of the situation.

Yule noted that even the GND served the profit agendas of fossil fuel companies, and did not address the nearing “10 year” deadline to stop ecological breakdown.

Whilst he has settled in the UK for decades, he has been speaking out in favour of his brother’s candidacy in the past few weeks, attending campaign events across the UK and Europe.

Currently, he has attended or is planning to attend events in London, Paris, Oxford, Edinburgh and St Andrews.

Larry has also attracted media attention in recent weeks, partly for his criticism of Hillary Clinton in the wake of a recent documentary in which her criticism of his brother gathered media attention.

He told The Independent this week, “I think Mrs Clinton had started with a good heart, started with principles and sold them out for political power. And she’s angry and bitter at somebody who stuck by his principles.”

Preview: Hero-Man

Clementine Scott
-
0
Preview: Hero-Man

How flawed are the moral dynamics in children’s superhero cartoons, and can we critique them through the medium of rock opera? These are the questions which new student-written musical Hero-Man: Champion of Justice aims to answer, co-directed by Lowri Spear and Raymond Douglas and premiering at the BT Studio this week.

From its tightly choreographed opening number, Hero-Man’s Theme, the show attempts to break down and expose the limits of superhero morality; the eponymous hero, portrayed by Reef Ronel, is immediately described in the song in hagiographic terms as ‘courageous and relentless’ and a ‘defender of the helpless’, and is placed in stark good-evil opposition to Joel Fernandez’s comically villainous Reklaw – this clearly delineated morality will inevitably become more blurred and corrupted as the show moves towards its deeply ambiguous conclusion. It soon becomes apparent that the show’s riffing on the tropes and mythology of the superhero genre is more important than its actual plot; the story itself appears to revolve around conflicts over several elaborately described gadgets and alliances which shift very rapidly given the show’s 45-minute runtime, but the satire is tight enough and the music (composed by Douglas, Spear and musical director Nicholas Heymann) sufficiently bombastic that the perhaps unnecessarily convoluted plot shouldn’t faze audiences. 

Every familiar aspect of this particular genre of children’s television is satirised – there are the hollow motivational statements (‘nothing is stronger than the power of belief’), and a fourth-wall-breaking awareness of the limits of episodic TV when Hero-Man laments to his sidekicks that even though ‘every week we catch him’, they will still have to come back the following week to catch Reklaw again. Moreover, not only does every character unabashedly fit an archetype from the superhero genre, they also seem gleefully aware of the role they fill in the narrative; Tim (Martin Lindill), Hero-Man’s trusty sidekick along with Zap the Dog (Sarah Davies), proclaims proudly that he is ‘just plucky comic relief’. This type of satire serves both to revisit a genre that is nostalgic for many people and to critique its simplistic tropes and approach to morality, but the character of Sinep (Sophia Heller), a cunning female villain who seduces her way into Hero-Man’s secret control room, was where this reviewer felt that the satire could have been better thought out. The idea that a cunning and sexually attractive woman can be a hero’s undoing rests squarely in the misogynistic assumption that female sexuality is equivalent to destruction; it would therefore have been pleasing if the writers had fleshed out Sinep as a character and used her to probe and question the femme fatale archetype rather than just playing it straight. This being said, Sinep’s solo, Sinep’s Theme, was beautifully sung by Heller and its lyrics had some interesting insights into the loneliness and loss of individuality inherent in becoming a hero.

Though Hero-Man could have simplified its storyline and refined its satire in certain areas, ultimately it serves as an interesting opportunity to revisit tropes from childhood with a critical gaze, and to probe more broadly ideas about moralising media and about what it means to be good and evil.

Radical Reshuffle: Cummings Takes Back Control

Elijah Ferrante
-
0
Radical Reshuffle: Cummings Takes Back Control

To a casual observer reading the past few days’ headlines, the contents of Boris Johnson’s reshuffle of his government would have come as something of a shock. Faced with the daily microscopic analysis of press releases, gossip and policy announcements, one would have been left with the impression that Dominic Cummings faced a potential dramatic loss of influence. Often touted as a Durham-derived Machiavelli, the former head of Vote Leave has been a controversial core of Johnson’s operation since Day 1, acting as his main advisor. But gossip regarding the political and household dynamics of Number 10 (Carrie vs Cummings), the planned limited integration of Huawei into the UKs telecommunications system and the go-ahead to HS2 – all projects opposed by Cummings – were all taken to mean his power was waning.

Then we had the reshuffle. It had Cummings’ fingerprints all over it. Sajid Javid quit as Chancellor rather than merge his special advisor team with Number 10’s, losing most of his allies in the process at the expense of empowering Cummings.

This is where focussing overly on the minutae of characters such as Cummings, fascinating though he is, is so downright dangerous. Although widely judged as the evil genius of Whitehall, he is (an albeit influential) part of a wider Government. What this reshuffle can tell us that this is just the beginning for this newly formed government. With a Parliamentary majority of 80 and a Labour Party in the throes of a leadership struggle, it is determined to blast as many shots as it can into an open goal.  

These events also demonstrate quite clearly a further consolidation of power at the top of government. The Prime Minister is not content with the model of first among equals, but as the clear head of Government, patron over a cabinet of allies and political clients. The major offices of state – Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, as well as the Prime Minister – are now headed by Brexiteers of a stripe close to that of Boris. It is a far cry from the four Remainers in place in the death throes of Mrs May’s era. Cummings is far from powerless and has indeed gained his wish in controlling the corps of special advisors around Government.

And looking at the selection of Suella Braverman, Jeremy Wright and the recent noises made about forthcoming White Papers and reviews into the BBC and the constitution, it looks to be a government with very specific aims. After ‘Taking back control’ from Brussels, the attention has now been focussed on another front not yet conquered by the right, the field of culture. A casual flick through the editorial position and main articles of The Telegraph and  The Spectator show a long-standing obsession on the part of the right with the perceived ‘left wing liberal snowflake’ culture of the BBC and ‘the youth’. Boris, by the way, made his name at The Telegraph and used to edit The Spectator. Who’d have thought it?

What this episode also shows is how the daily chattering of the political commentariat are now running up a collection of failed predictions. How ‘close’ Labour were to winning the 2017 election, how Corbyn was ‘on-track’ to narrow the gap at the 2019 election. All of these share a lack of long-term focus. For someone who has been credited as the architect of ‘Vote-Leave’ and has been touted as a ‘genius’ by the Prime Minister – it is hard to believe Cummings would lose his influence so easily. It seems yet another instance of obsessing over the daily stories and office politics, to wish into existence a dysfunctional Government, and by extension an easier opponent for a resurgent Labour party to defeat come the next election. Former Prime Minister George Canning may have said he wished people would focus more on the men of government than the measures they suggested, but in the case of our current media class, maybe a bit less on personalities would be worthwhile.

I won’t suggest that the Labour party are doomed to another 10 years in opposition, or that we are faced with a daily deluge of ‘fake news’ or incompetent reporting. What is needed is a dose of realism and taking of a longer view. Compared to the assuredness of Johnson, a Labour Party with a leadership still headed by the people who were architects of Labour’s colossal electoral defeat does seem to make a Labour government a far-away prospect. What is needed, if Labour wants to see itself back in power in the decade, is for it to work out why Johnson’s Tories have been so successful and imitate accordingly. It worked for Tony Blair and Mrs Thatcher; does Labour really pride ideological purity at the expense of endless Tory rule? They need to remember how to be an effective opposition, supporting the government where it’s popular and attacking them it isn’t.

The past 5 years have seen an abdication on the part of Labour as the Party of Opposition. For all the soundbites on austerity, as far as the public is concerned, the only things to remember are Jeremy Corbyn’s shambolic performances at PMQs, a long-drawn-out anti-Semitism crisis and a Leadership office interested in deselecting its own existing MPs. A sober, long term view could be the first steps back into returning to government. Rather than making the latest pitch for a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’, the focus should be on the sort of easy to remember policies that Boris repeated ad infiniutm at the election.

All is not lost. During the Coalition, following the successful launch of Free Schools and an all-out assault on ‘the blob’, Cummings simply resigned. The cause cited is the ignoring of his proposition for scrapping GCSEs as a qualification. In the stretch of four years, tempers fray, political calculations and strategic alliances shift. Who knows what can happen, especially with a man who has no interest in being convivial? But rather than wishing this into existence, what is needed now more than ever is an effective opposition and critical commentary. Rather than focussing on the individual, the best defence against a seemingly entrenched Government is time, clear organisation and useful critique. Wishful thinking will only breed more defeats.

Preview: Pleading Stupidity

Abigail Howe
-
0
Preview: Pleading Stupidity

As Storm Dennis raged, I wondered if it was strictly necessary that I went to the preview of Pleading Stupidity.It was a whole six minutes’ walk away. But, eventually, I chose to face the wind and rain and do my duty. Thank goodness I did because staying in would have been a far more stupid choice than any decision in the play.

While Brad (Barney Newman) and Chad (James Akka) were on their gap year from Oz, they made the… bold choice to rob a bank at pseudo-gunpoint. They also made the even bolder decision to wear name tags from work while doing so. Shockingly, they’re on trial. Now, this might sound like a grand spoiler, but this is all revealed in the first minute as the Prosecution (Ellie Cooper) outlines their crime. The Defence (Gemma Daubeney) argues that they simply are too stupid to face harsh consequences. A fluid narrative then pulls us between the trial and the boys’ time in Vail, Colorado.  A minimalistic set is advantageously used for these narrative jumps; witness boxes are slid around the stage to become whatever the plot requires. The audience is addressed as judge and jury but, don’t fear, it won’t be a night of agonising moral dilemmas. Instead, it’s funny, fast-paced and a fantastic night.

The references are firmly of their time – Point Breakand Blockbuster. iPods are innovative rather than retro. Ferraris, not Teslas, are the car of choice. Goon, drongos and Shannon Noll also feature. It’s quite the Australian education. There are also some brilliant one-liners, too explicit to place in print but making a significant impression. Pens on chains, Mormonism and ‘exciting B-plots’ all come under fire.

There are a lot of characters in Pleading Stupidity but few actors. Their ability to multirole is a tribute to their skill, vocally and physically. By the end, it was a shock to hear Barney Newman slip out of an Australian accent. Although some accents aren’t fully polished yet, this appears to be deliberate experimentation rather than confusion. Ellie Cooper and Gemma Daubeney flip between characters with astonishing ease. It’s their constant variation which accommodates the narrative. As Jenny and Laura, they provide a beat of pathos within the otherwise breakneck-speed performance. They then suddenly flip into boisterous comedy as Agents Bear and Jones (their history together is a sit-com waiting to happen).

James Akka is relentlessly funny as Chad, making all the wrong choices in the best possible ways, then switching into the useless police officer MacPherson so swiftly that I had a second where I thought Chad was impersonating him. Barney Newman, as Brad, is thoughtless and comic, wobbling on the edge of doubt and then firmly throwing himself over the edge with more aplomb than Chad.

If Pleading Stupidity is this good already, then I can’t imagine what it’ll be like on opening night. I’m already pleading with my friends to see it.

Tinder? I hardly know her

Ben Jureidini
-
0
Tinder? I hardly know her

2:30AM. You’ve left Bridge before closing. Some reptilian part of your VK-addled brain sparks up and before you know it, you’re in bed swiping left on the eighth person whose ‘tall, if it matters’, and swiping right on someone just to exercise some other muscle group in your thumb. Of course, that happens to be the one person you match with that evening. Your eyes roll, and you’re immediately met with the race to un-match before you get hit with some variety on ‘hey, seeing as we’re both up…’

There is something about spending time on Tinder (other dating apps are available) that feels akin to awkward, sexually charged eye contact on the District Line. The moments/hours/days between the millisecond dopamine rush and the first message being sent leaves you in an odd limbo where you both know you’re equally interested/bored/drunk, but not quite enough to actually engage in conversation. If you finally do take the plunge and decide to talk to each other, the vast majority of conversations take one of two routes:

‘Hey’
‘Hey’
‘How you doing?’
‘Ahaha is that a Friends reference’
‘yh ahah’

Or, perhaps more entertainingly,

‘I would love to suck your toes.’

This is not to say Tinder is always the technological equivalent of taking someone home after a club night just to look in the mirror and ignore them whilst they sit awkwardly at your kitchen table, but slowly that Black Mirror episode where Bryce Dallas Howard gets arrested for the human equivalent of a low Yelp review seems to make sense the fifth time someone opens with the James Franco wink gif. At least ‘lucky for you I’m a pervert’ was an original conversation starter. And just like a club night, the urge to shower is overwhelming and you’re probably disappointing your parents. Swiping on Tinder feels like an acceptance that you’re bypassing any kind of slow blossoming genuine connection– no one writes songs about being superliked by Chris, 25, Brookes Uni.

So then when you’re standing outside the tube station, somehow recalling every single sex trafficking story ever reported, thinking back to a more innocent time where only silly people got into strangers’ cars,  you catch the eye of the collection of photos you’ve been chatting to walk towards you and in a weird uncanny valley moment realise this is a complete stranger you’ve been talking to for three weeks. Only then does it cross your mind that those photos were probably picked for good reason, and their height definitely does matter. Do you hug? Shake hands? Fist (bump)? They’re paying, right?

At the risk of mixing modern-day metaphors, we’re able to treat people in the same way we treat a box set of Killing Eve. It’s on-demand attention where you can, quite literally, turn people off. The ghost in the machine has a name, and it’s Molly, 22, Beautician. So why not delete it? Why not, you know, leave the house? Get out a bit? Firstly, at least it’s not meth, but secondly, there’s perhaps something reassuring about such a vast group of people all choosing to download an app that we can collectively agree is basically a technological purgatory where lost souls wait around for something better to happen. If one extreme of social media is seeing someone from the year above you in primary school get engaged on Instagram whilst you’re still shimmying away from a nonce on the Park End cheese floor, the other is on Tinder, where we’re all just shimmying away from toe-suckers and hoping we’ll bump into someone who knows how to use deodorant.

A brief translator’s guide to Tinder:

“6’0”, because apparently that matters”
I’m 5’10” and bitter.

“Why match and not message?”
I’ll message you “hey” eight times at 3:30am, then call you a slut when you don’t reply.

“Send memes”
Send nudes.

“Your mum will love me.”
She won’t.

“Sesh-head”
I smell like dark fruits.

“New to this.”
I’m 57 years old and hang about at clubs.

“Not on here much, add me on Instagram.”
I’m not actually a human being.

“Dark sense of humour.”
Racist.

UCU Strikes: What you need to know

Felix O'Mahony
-
0
UCU Strikes: What you need to know

The University and Colleges Union will begin strikes again this Thursday, Cherwell is here to tell you everything you need to know.

When are strikes taking place?

The UCU has announced 14 weekdays of strikes, but action will be spread out over the course of 23 days. Striking days will be grouped into three clusters and escalate in length during the 23 days. 

Cluster 1: Thursday of 5th week – Wednesday of 6th week (4 working days)

Cluster 2: Monday of 7th week – Thursday of 7th week (4 working days)

Cluster 3: Monday of 8th week – Friday of 8th week (5 working days)

Who is striking?

The University and Colleges Union is organising and participating in the strikes. The UCU is a trade union which represents those employed in higher education. This means that union represents casualised researchers and teaching staff, “permanent” lecturers and academic-related professional services staff. Any employee of the university who falls under one of these categories and is a member of the UCU is eligible to participate in the upcoming strikes.

It is unclear how wide-ranging strikes will be this year, and exactly how many lecturers intend to strike. Although all UCU members have the right to strike, whether to strike or not is left to the discretion of the individual. Cherwell understands that approximately 50% of the Oxford UCU branch turned out to vote in the strike ballot. Of those, around 75% voted in favour of action, meaning that around 38% of Oxford UCU members have returned a vote to strike.

As of October 2019, Oxford’s branch of the UCU had 1,225 members.

Information distributed by the University has made it clear that they expect the majority of teaching to go unaffected.

How will it affect me?

The most tangible effects for students will be the cancellation of some lectures, labs, and other teaching organised by the central University and its faculties. Students will be notified beforehand if any events are cancelled. Oxford has also said that it will attempt to reschedule any teaching which is affected by the action.

Further, the UCU has encouraged its members to take action short of a strike. This involves working strictly to contract, not catching up on work missed due to work, not covering for absent colleagues, not undertaking any voluntary activities, and a marking and assessment boycott. Action short of a strike is unlikely to drastically impact the quality of teaching but may mean academics becoming stricter with the work they will carry out for the university. The marking and assessment boycott means that academics may elect not to participate in the marking or moderation of university-level examinations.

Teaching in college will go unaffected. Tutorials and classes should go on, and collections and internal examinations will be undertaken as normal.

Why are academics striking?

Members of the UCU are striking this term over two separate disputes. One relates to the University, and the other to the higher education pensions’ provider: the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS).

Dispute with Universities

The UCU’s dispute with universities covers pay, equality, casualisation, and workloads.

The Union has alleged that higher education employees’ retail price index (RPI) inflation-adjusted pay has fallen by around 20% since 2009. This figure stands at odds with calculations made by the University and Colleges Employers’ Association which puts the pay reduction since 2009 between 1.5% (CPIH inflation-adjusted pay for junior university staff) and 17% (RPI inflation-adjusted pay for senior university staff).

Negotiations with the UCEA, which represents universities in negotiations, on the current dispute began in March 2019. 

Most recently, the UCEA submitted an offer to the UCU in January which details the concessions universities are currently willing to make. The offer includes a 1.8% pay increase for staff, which the UCU says “fails to keep up with the cost of living.” The offer also includes measures to address the gender pay gap, expecting universities to work with trade unions to address disparities. It also encourages universities to move staff currently employed on casual or fixed-term contracts onto indefinite contracts, and encourages institutions to investigate ways to ensure that demands placed on university staff are achievable.

Currently, UCU negotiators have made it clear that they do not believe that this latest offer represents the best deal which could be achieved for members, although both parties agree that significant progress has been made on the dispute.

Dispute with the USS

Union members have also raised a dispute concerning the sustainability of the universities’ pensions scheme.

The dispute has been slower to negotiate, as the UCU argues that the current pensions pot has been undervalued, and members are currently being asked to increase contributions to the scheme while receiving less in their retirement.

According to the UCU, changes which have been made to the USS have meant that an average member will pay £40,000 extra into their pension but receive £200,000 less in their retirement.

The USS argues that the scheme “faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.”

This dispute also involves Universities UK, representing universities in the pensions dispute. According to UUK, employers have agreed to cover 65% of the increased costs to the USS. The body has expressed dismay at the decision taken by the UCU committing to further strike action.

Where will the strikes take place?

Strikes will take place outside six locations in Oxford:

  • Clarendon Building, Broad Street
  • Examinations Schools, High Street
  • Science Area South, South Parks Road
  • Science Area North, Parks Road
  • Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road
  • The Old Road Campus Research Building, Roosevelt Drive

Picket lines will form at around 8:30 am.

There will also be a rally outside the Clarendon Building on Broad Street at 12 pm on Thursday 20th February (Thursday of 5th). Speakers at the event will include the president of Oxford Students’ Union.

Should I cross a picket line?

Striking members cannot stop students from crossing picket lines, and decisions to attend lectures must be made by an individual. However, Oxford Students’ Union encouraged students not to cross picket lines during the strikes in November 2019, citing that “we have a responsibility to support this upcoming strike.”

It also encouraged Oxford students to participate in “solidarity action.”

Can I seek financial compensation for lost teaching time?

Oxford has made it clear that they intend to put alternative arrangements in place to minimise disruption during the strikes. They will not be issuing compensation to students.

However, if alternative arrangements have been inadequate, students may complain to the University.

Will the strikes end after this term?

If the UCU is able to find resolution with universities and the USS, strikes will cease. However, the Union has made it clear that they are willing to take further industrial action until the end of the academic year if sufficient progress is not made. For many universities, this will require a re-balloting of members, since strike ballots are only valid for 6 months. At Oxford, the current strike mandate lasts until July, since the most recent ballot was returned in January this year.

What have the relevant parties said about the strikes?

Cherwell asked the UCU, Oxford University, the Universities Superannuation Scheme, Universities UK and the Universities and Colleges Employers Association for comment regarding the most recent round of strikes. Their responses are as follows.

Oxford UCU

“UCU has just announced 14 days of strike action, starting on the 20th of February, for both the USS pensions and the pay & equality disputes. Oxford will now also be joining the USS action after a successful re-ballot, in addition to the pay & equality dispute which we took part in last term. While we have seen important steps in engagement, with employers being prepared to discuss issues that were previously off the table as a result of the first round of strike action, they have failed to make serious commitments in either dispute so far. We have 17 days between now and then, and very much hope that UUK and UCEA will at last come to us with a serious offers on the two disputes. UCUs HEC will meet on the 14th of February to consider any offers that may be on the table between now and then, and we will of course be following developments closely. We do not want to resort to strike action but we are prepared and determined to do so if necessary”

Jo Grady (UCU General Secretary)

“We have seen more members back strikes since the winter walkouts and this next wave of action will affect even more universities and students. If universities want to avoid further disruption they need to deal with rising pension costs, and address the problems over pay and conditions.

“We have been clear from the outset that we would take serious and sustained industrial action if that was what was needed. As well as the strikes starting later this month, we are going to ballot members to ensure that we have a fresh mandate for further action to cover the rest of the academic year if these disputes are not resolved.”

Oxford University

“The University is disappointed with the outcome of the Oxford UCU ballot in favour of industrial action over USS pensions. We understand the concerns many staff have on pensions, as well as on pay. We also have a duty to ensure our education and research activities continue as far as possible and will therefore have contingency plans in place to minimise the impact of any industrial action on staff, students and visitors.”

USS

“We recognise the difficulties in levying higher contributions but USS, along with all similar pension schemes, faces a challenging environment in which the costs of funding high-quality defined benefits have increased.

“We will be revisiting these issues over the coming months under the 2020 valuation and are committed to working with Higher Education employers to build a secure financial future for our members and their families.”

UUK

“We regret that UCU are planning further strike action at a time when positive talks on the future of the scheme are making significant progress and are ongoing. Despite this, UCU continue to request that employers pay still higher contributions at unaffordable levels.

“By law, pension costs had to rise to maintain current benefits. Employers have agreed to cover 65% of these increased costs, taking their contribution to 21.1% of salaries from October 2019 – together committing £250m more a year. Members have been asked to make a fair contribution too.

“The best way forward is to work collectively to secure a pension scheme that is highly valued and affordable for all. The current tripartite talks between UCU, USS, and UUK, which are set to continue at least until March, are building a shared understanding on the future of the scheme, jointly developing governance reforms and considering alternative pathways for the 2020 valuation.

“Universities will put in place a series of measures to minimise the impact of industrial action on students, other staff and the wider community.”

UCEA

“We are dismayed, and many HE institutions will be so too, to see UCU’s HEC decide to ask the union’s members to once again use damaging strike action over last year’s national pay demands. Strike action should always be a last resort and we believe that UCU’s 70,000 members in the 147 institutions should now be given a say. There are new ways forward being offered by HE employers – UCEA has made available significant positive proposals on key issues in UCU’s dispute – contractual arrangements, workload / mental health and gender pay gaps / ethnicity pay – developed following two months of talks with UCU. Strikes in less than half the universities in the multi-employer negotiations are not the answer and are in real danger of undermining the national collective pay bargaining arrangements. 

“UCEA has proactively and formally consulted its members in developing our significant new proposals as we can only move with the consensus of our members. UCU members deserve a chance to have their voices heard as to how they feel about the progress that has been made and whether they want to choose an alternative to further disruptive action.”

1...496497498...2,491Page 497 of 2,491

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley