The Gender Equality Society of the University of Exeter has changed its name to Feminist Society. The decision was taken by a society vote and was passed by the Students’ Guild Societies Officer shortly thereafter.
Lucy Whitaker, President of Feminist Society, explained the reasons and process for the name change: “There are a couple of reasons we wanted to change the name. One is that no one in the society shies away from the word ‘feminism’ but our society name suggested otherwise. In fact, many people both in and out of the society criticised the name ‘Gender Equality’ for this reason. In descriptions of the society I have always referred to it as a feminist society so it made sense to change our name so that we did not have to explain that we were in fact feminists and proud to be so despite not being called Feminist Society. We’ve occasionally been met with hostility for changing the name but we took a vote as a society and an overwhelming majority were passionate about changing the name so we stand by our decision.
“The terms ‘Gender Equality’ and ‘Feminism’ should be interchangeable but the fact that we had to have this discussion proves that they are not. This could be because of hostility or fear of the word feminism or simply people not understanding that feminism is anything above equality for the genders. The fact that the York Feminist Society couldn’t get ratified by their union shows that fear of feminism, or at least the term feminism, still exists. The fact that we will be taking on the name shows our desire to educate people on what the term actually means, our pride to identify with the feminist movement and our solidarity with other feminists who may be experiencing hostility over their use of the word”.
Jak Curtis-Rendall, VP Participation and Campuses, told Exeposé: “Feminist Society chose to change its name to reflect the important principles and activities it has held since it was first affiliated. This name change brings the society into line with those nationally, and the change was unanimously approved by the Societies Executive”.
Megan Furborough, a third year English student, said: “It’s really encouraging to see that ‘Feminist’ is being celebrated by the society. Feminism is not a dirty word, and in order to achieve and improve rights for women, the first thing we need to do is more fully embrace and use the term”.
It’s going to be a busy week for Exeposé Comment Online with the arguments for and against Blurred Lines gathering momentum. Before that, here’s what Online Editors Dave Reynolds and James Bennett make of the situation at large.
Across the University, the debate concerning what to do about Robin Thicke’s Blurred Lines is set to kick off with the recently amended three-way vote due in the coming weeks. Shouldn’t we all keep in mind though, that at the end of the day it is just a crappy pop song that no one will even have an interest in putting on a Lemmy playlist six months from now anyway?
“Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full.” Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire
Some lines have been drawn between this referendum and the one concerning the distribution of The Sun in Guild outlets. While the Anti-Ban campaigners seem to be citing issues of censorship on both accounts, their argument may not stack up as well here as it did concerning The Sun. Reading The Sun and enjoying Page 3 is a relatively private experience wherein you buy the paper and you read it and nobody else needs to get involved, not that it stops some from trying.
When the issue becomes the song being played in the Lemmy or the Ram it becomes a much more public experience and more difficult to avoid without totally removing yourself from a social situation on campus. It’s a bit like passive smoking but with a different kind of disease! In this case, somebody’s enjoyment of the medium can, arguably, be detrimental to others.
Is Blurred Lines any worse than the plethora of other not only sexist or misogynistic, but also violent, racially orientated or drug tolerant music available to people today? There are so many arguably outrageous music videos out there at the moment and Miley Cyrus licking a hammer and swinging about naked is not something we really have any interest in seeing while tucking into our chicken bites and curly fries at the Ram either. How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?
“How is it that some blowjobs in The Ram are responsible for the SSB being cancelled but more commercially viable videos with content of a higher definition and clarity are put up on our TV screens for all to enjoy?” Photo Credit: Miley Cyrus via OnSecretHunt
In an interview with the BBC, Thicke explained the origins of his song, saying, “For me it was about blurring the lines between two things: Number one, men and women and how much we’re the same. My wife is as smart as I am, as strong if not stronger but she’s an animal too and she doesn’t need a man to define her or define her existence so the song was really about women [being] everything that a man is and [that they] can do anything a man can do. The other side of this is there are blurred lines between a good girl and a bad girl; even a good girl has a little bad side, you just need to know how to pull it out of them.”
Maybe the idea that it is a man’s responsibility to”pull out” the bad girl from within a good girl goes against what he’s saying, but should his speech not go at least some way towards discouraging the idea that the song has anything to do with rape or misogyny? Isn’t it all about interpretation? Sometimes, do people just want to be offended no matter how much evidence is provided to the contrary?
Really, it might be that the only winner out of this whole process is Robin Thicke himself. His song is now being discussed by people who, prior to the past few weeks, could quite happily have gone their whole lives without knowing who he is or what his mediocre pop-song sounded like in full. Before finding out that there was going to be a Blurred Lines referendum, neither of us had ever heard it in its entirety or shown any interest in doing so. Regrettably, due to its infectious rhythm and our constant exposure to the tune, the pair of us have been incessantly humming, singing and whistling the song since the start of the year. Quite frankly we’ll be glad when it’s all over, but no doubt there’ll be a new motion to polarise the Exeter student population soon enough.
Dave Reynolds and James Bennett
Do you buy Robin Thicke’s tale of the origin of his song and video? Has the University made too much of a big deal out of what is really a harmless pop tune? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
Exeposé Comment:Do you think Blurred Lines should be banned from campus?
Lucy Whitaker: No one wants to, or has the power to, completely ban Blurred Lines from campus. The campaign is to get it removed from playlists that the guild have control over to send out the message that the student body of Exeter do not want to support misogyny in music. The society supports the motion and I personally do not think that this infringes on anyone’s individual rights.
“The society is, however, a feminist society and we personally are not trying to escape that title by being called Gender Equality society instead.” Photo Credit: Exeter Gender Equality Society
EC: What is the role of G. Soc on campus?
LW: The Gender Equality society is a place to give students a platform to speak out about issues involving gender inequality. We give students the opportunity to do this via meetings and campaigns as well as providing a friendly environment for students to meet like minded people.
EC:Does DebSoc, as the university’s oldest society, finally having its first all-women panel count as progress in gender equality?
LW: Giving women a voice always counts as progress. I’m happy to see that the current committee of DebSoc had the vision to host an all-women panel. My only complaint is that it took until 2013 for this to happen!
EC: 53% of the university’s student population is female. As of May 2013, there were only 3 women CEOs in the FTSE100. Why is this and where are all of these highly educated women going?
LW: These statistics suggest that a ‘glass ceiling’ still exists in the work place that prevents women from achieving the higher positions. Inequality in the workplace is one of the biggest challenges facing the Gender Equality movement today. Hopefully, with that amount of women being highly educated, we’ll start to see a change in the numbers and fall in workplace discrimination.
EC:What is the grossest example of gender inequality on campus?
LW: Probably lad culture. Specifically, the mentality among young men that see disrespecting women as an achievement.
EC:Is G. Soc not just the Feminist Society by another name?
LW: Supposedly, the reason G. Soc is not called Feminist Society is because they were advised not to be called that. I was not involved in naming the society so I can’t say for sure why that was. The society is, however, a feminist society and we personally are not trying to escape that title by being called Gender Equality society instead.
EC:Is supporting campaigns like banning The Sun from Guild outlets the best use of your time as a society?
LW: Due to conflicting opinions of the individual members, banning The Sun from the guild was not something our society was officially involved in. That said, the point of the society is to give the members a platform to speak out against things they see as harmful to the progress of gender equality and if individual members saw The Sun as harmful then I would agree that campaigning to ban it would be a good use of their time.
EC:How did G. Soc fair at the Freshers’ squash in terms of sign-up levels? What can new members expect from a G. Soc social?
LW: We did excellently this year. I hear we even beat Conservative Future! We recently just elected our social sec so the socials are in her hands but I expect quite a few trips to the pub with great people and great discussion.
EC:Is Katie Hopkins a role model as a woman in the media? If not, then who is?
LW: Without personally attacking her, I disagree with a lot of what she has to say and think she’s said some things that work against feminism and gender equality meaning I cannot advocate her as a role model for women. As an alternative, Carmen Paddock, who is Studio Manager at XTV, is an excellent role model who is hard working, selfless and reliably upbeat.
Dave Reynolds and James Bennett, Online Comment Editors
Do you think there is a ‘”glass ceiling” in the work place that prevents women from achieving the higher positions in business? Should Blurred Lines be banned from campus? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose. If a society or organisation that you are involved in is interested in appearing in this feature, contact us at exepose-comment@xmedia.ex.ac.uk.
On behalf of Exeposé Comment, Fiona Potigny reviews Debating Society‘s heavily anticipated and highly attended Friday night debate discussing the virtues of pornography as a public service.
Tonight, feminist would meet feminist. American would meet Brit. Ex-porn star turned Christian would meet erotic writer. The tension was palpable in the air, and the crowd of eager debaters, packed like sardines into the Amory Moot, held their breath as they eagerly awaited DebSoc’s first Friday debate of the year. The motion: “This house believes that pornography provides a good public service.”
“Ultimately, the night was a success; one sure to go down in DebSoc history for not only having the first all-female panel since DebSoc’s formation 1893, but also for drawing a crowd so impressively large that many had to be turned away at the door.” Photo Credit: Emily Cobb via Emily Cobb Photography
Jane Fae, feminist and Guardian journalist, was first to take the stand defending the motion.She opened by stating that the problem lies not with the pornography industry itself, but with the current education system, which currently provides no analysis of sexuality, but merely teaches a set of reproductive facts.
Despite supporting the motion, Fae was adamant that we should not glamorise porn, as to do so would be to naively deny the misogyny and false views about sex. Whilst Fae’s points were strong in themselves, she did come across as a slightly hesitant speaker, owing in part to her quiet delivery. It must also be noted that she did not define the motion, as is the norm at the beginning of a debate. It was probably as a result of this that the audience remained unclear as to whether the debate was over whether porn is a morally “good public service”, or a “good public service”, which unfortunately allowed for all parties to dither away from the exact motion throughout the debate.
Tiffany Leeper, founder of Girls Against Porn and Human Trafficking, was up next. An exceptionally emotive speaker, Leeper launched into a personal attack on porn, using an anecdotal ‘boy meets girl’ scenario to explain how her relationship was torn apart by her childhood sweetheart’s addiction.
On the whole, she delivered a confident speech and her account seemed to be genuinely heartfelt. She ended on the point that, without doubt, men will have intimacy issues if they continue in their porn-reliant ways, which provoked audible disagreement from the male faction of the audience whilst raising a few laughs in the female (whether this was agreement or disagreement is more uncertain).
Erotic writer Zak Jane Keir was quick to provide a counter to this. Keir gave a cynical account of the government claiming that the new emphasis on blocking pornography was a scapegoat. She attacked the American religious right for inflicting compulsory social monogamy, something which would later cause a heated side-argument with her adversary, Dr Shelley Lubben, a born-again Christian.
As far as debating tactics go, Keir seemed to have a taste for the controversial, with phrases like, “children could see worse than a bit’a f*** and suck” for example, and refusing to accept any religion that depends upon an “imaginary friend”. She raised a few good points, notably that a counter-message should be sent to the porn industry through the support of progressive LGBTQ and feminist-friendly porn. Ultimately though, the only argument that seemed directly relevant to the motion was that “with porn you get a w*nk, a sandwich, and a good night’s sleep”. Nevertheless, as one heckler pointed out, “you don’t need porn to have a w*nk!” An equally fair point.
The most anticipated speaker then took her stand: Dr Shelley Lubben, former porn star turned campaigner against porn. Having experienced and eventually been reformed from the Californian porn industry, Dr Lubben was keen to exhibit her insider knowledge of the darker side of the industry, using stories of HIV/AIDS-based STD pandemics, forced drug and alcohol consumption, and even instances of rape to further detail her point that the porn industry works illegally and immorally.
As was to be expected, Dr Lubben was an impassioned speaker, telling the audience that “we’re better than porn”. Despite her intense conviction which seemed to be bringing her to tears by the end of her speech, Dr Lubben lost some of the audience’s support when declaring her strong Christian faith and suggesting that her career exit was “God’s plan”. This seemed to divide the room rather than unite it. That said, she undoubtedly remained the highlight of the evening with such an insightful speech.
The question voted best by the judge came from Sasha Gibbins, who asked what the panel thought was preventing the porn industry from collapsing, which saw a remarkably concordant answer from each side: that apathy and popularity were the cause. The final vote showed a sway towards the proposition, who took the motion with a clear majority. Ultimately, the night was a success; one sure to go down in DebSoc history for not only having the first all-female panel since DebSoc’s formation 1893, but also for drawing a crowd so impressively large that many had to be turned away at the door.
Seeing as the next public debate is set to be “This house believes that Margaret Thatcher was a force for global good” featuring none other than everyone’s favourite public figure Kate Hopkins of recent baby name infamy, it is clear that DebSoc have no intention of slowing down on the polemic debates.
Fiona Potigny
In case you don’t know who Katie Hopkins is, you can get an idea of what she’s like from the video below. Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Does Exeter University have a healthy enough attitude towards pornogrpahy and sexuality? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
A fresh batch of eager student volunteers braved the intense rain showers covering Streatham campus on Tuesday to find out more about some of Exeter’s charitable societies.
The afternoon-tea event in Queen’s Building, organised by Jodie Dewberry, brought together a range of student groups. Despite terrible weather throughout the day the gathering attracted a steady stream of students, old and new.
Whilst attendees did enjoy free refreshments, from cake to sausage rolls, the interest in supporting good causes amongst the student community was clear. Societies such as STAR (Student Action for Refugees), Oxfam, Mind Your Head, Gender Equality, Amnesty International, Friends of Palestine and Bollocks to Poverty all attracted curious newcomers to Exeter.
Jodie told Exeposé that several of the societies were planning a joint social in a few weeks time to build on the success of the afternoon-tea.
All of Exeter’s student volunteer societies will be at the Freshers’ Fair on Sunday the 22nd if you wish to sign-up, and you can also do so online via the Guild Website.
After this week’s heated debate concerning the fate of The Sun at our University, this piece of ‘new journalism’ written by former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society Rachel Brown gives a narrative which explores what stereotypes exist concerning The Sun’s male readership due to the presence of Page 3.
The little door opens, delinquent winds seize chance, throwing upon the innocent café entrance handfuls of rain and dust made fugitive from the cobbled square outside. As the remaining gusts quarrel with the tinny jingle of the doorbell, the discordant orchestration compels my gaze above the top of my book and toward the source where I observe your final wrestles against the wind.
As you triumphantly close the door, raindrops cling stubbornly to your coat and pull neglectfully at your hair. Sweeping the weather-beaten strands from your cheeks, your face is revealed like clouds parting for the sun.
“…I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.” Photo Credit: An Untrained Eye via Flickrcc
I barter with luck while you survey the low-ceilinged café. Composed of typical West Country furniture, their blockish framework is so enduring that your grandchildren, buttery-faced, will probably swing their chubby legs from the same chairs as they gleefully tuck into their scones.
Fortune is mine, you sit at the neighbouring table and ask the waiter for a pot of Darjeeling tea. I inhale, and, trying not to disclose smiling joy at your choice, I briefly close my eyes to recall the virtues of your chosen tea: “Its leaves decorate only rare heights and just one clime. Its texture rich, notes delicate and swansong sweet…”
I open my eyes. You have settled into your seat and assumed sovereign poise. Turned so slightly facing towards me, I bask in nature’s sweet coincidence — our equal purview of one another. Your posture is elegant, your plaid scarf wrapped as though arranged by birds in flight, your woollen coat sharp as a cliff’s edge and brogues that cannot silence unfailing taste. The waiter returns and you meet his face to thank him with kind eyes and a smile.
Any attempt of return to my book, without mere affectation, would be unthinkable! All I can do is give definition to the flowering picture of you. You exhale, perhaps signalling relief at your escape from the torments of the raging weather now behind us.
You draw down into your bag to produce some reading material. “What tales of you might this speak?” I ask myself hopefully. Its scarlet topped paper remains obscure to my vision. The article rises in your hand toward the table you rest upon. You open to its pages, now unveiling to me its cover from which I read: “The Sun”
Images of male “Sun readers” paraded in my mind — Misogynist. Chauvinist. Sexist. These words hurled themselves at me with a greater violence than the marauding winds outside. Arrows began to cast themselves into the picture of you. Your defence attorney pointed and quibbled: “But he will, of course, take no interest in passé page three. He is interested, I am sure, in only the sport and actual news.” But you did not hasten past page three to the later sports pages.
And it would always be: You had purchased The Sun, a newspaper that still makes boobs news. My vision of you punctured, I picked up my book, my bag and my disappointment, and there I hoped: May you and your newspaper one day possess a more visionary male stereotype than just a certain kind of man.
Rachel Brown
Is somebody’s choice of newspaper an accurate way to judge their personality? Is it fair to label readers of The Sun as misogynistic and sexist? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
With The Sun’s availability on campus being threatened by the imminent Guild referendum, Exeposé Comment looks at the arguments made for and against removing The Sun from Guild outlets and leaning on other campus stockists until the pictures of topless women are removed from page 3.
Across UK universities, removing The Sun from sale seems to be becoming a popular method of protesting sexism and misogyny in the media. A ferocious campaign led by No More Page 3 has seen the paper removed in a number of universities including LSE, Edinburgh and Dundee. They have also secured over 100,000 signatures in a petition to Dominic Mohan, the editor of The Sun, to, “drop the bare boobs from the newspaper.” With the referendum by the Guild underway this week led by the Vote Yes to boycotting The Sun on campus! group, some have seen the vote as an inappropriate attempt to limit our freedom of speech, while others still regard the issue as one of the objectification of women as mere voiceless sex objects.
“At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in every issue of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality.” Photo Credit: Niklas Rahmel
Rachel Brown, former President of Exeter Gender Equality Society argues that, “If you want to buy The Sun, you can go to another newsagents which is no hardship. The Guild ban is about effective campaigning and the referendum makes it a fair process. It sends a clear message that we expect The Sun to ditch their patronising, sexualised representation of women.” Those in favour of banning The Sun are keen to point out that the move is designed to withdraw support for the newspaper from the Guild, and not to dictate people’s reading habits. At its core, the issue concerns the naked breasts present in many issues of The Sun, and the harm that this does to gender equality. No More Page 3’s open letter petition highlights that, “George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, Dominic?… No, they don’t. There would be an outcry.”
It makes sense to say that Page Three Girls are an outdated and misogynistic addition to our printed media, but does that really mean that we should remove the UK’s most widely read publication from campus?
Rob Price, one of those heading the “Vote No to banning The Sun from Guild Shops” group, comments that,” We are not defending Page 3, but rather the spirit of open debate in the student body. The YES campaign can achieve nothing, because The Guild has no jurisdiction over the marketplace, the only stockist of The Sun of campus – but a victory would nonetheless be an attempt to restrict access to material that you disagree with for others, and that is the essence of censorship. So whilst freedom of choice will not actually be infringed, the motion is nonetheless an attempt to do so, and it is on these grounds that we oppose it.”
Freedom of expression is obviously something that should protected, but to what extent and when does protecting one group’s right to expression results in the persecution of another? For many, it is the case that it is no one’s right to, and the media’s responsibility not to, objectify and over-sexualise a woman in any way. Christopher Fear wrote in the Vote No group, “[The Yes Campaign] is small-minded, parochial, embarrassing, practically ineffective and, as a purely symbolic act, a distraction from the concrete interests of gender equality.”
In Exeposé Comment‘s most responded to Facebook poll to date, 76% voted that The Sun should not be removed from all University campus outlets. Obviously this result comes from a significantly smaller sample size than the referendum being held by the Guild will be subject to, but it does perhaps give a feel for the sentiments of the student population in Exeter.
Of those who responded to the poll, it should come as no surprise that the majority of people who wished to see The Sun banned were women, while the overwhelming majority of those wishing to keep The Sun on our shelves were men. That is not to say that only a woman could have any interest in the promotion of gender equality, however it’s reasonable to suggest that in this situation the female population at the University of Exeter has a more tangible, immediate interest in the issue.
While we believe that The Sun promotes a view of women that is derogatory at best while being neither true or relevant in modern society, there is a fine line to tread between the noble pursuit of equality for all and falling into the trap of enveloping censorship. By no means do we think that this referendum will be the beginning of a slippery slope to overbearing Guild influence, but it does perhaps set a precedent for any and all matters of offence to result in campus-wide reform.
James Bennett and Dave Reynolds, Online Comment Editors
When the All England Club announced its ‘Master Plan’ to further modernise the world’s most famous tennis tournament over the next 15-20 years, few would have argued against the plan to follow Centre Court’s success and build a roof on Court One. However, the other major development in the manifesto, the increase of prize money by 40% to a total of £22.6m, has resurrected a debate that dominated last year’s tournament: should men and women receive equal prize money?
The main issue that critics of the equal pay system have is that men play best of five sets in Grand Slams while women play just best of three. If we look at all the other events on tour, in which men also play best of three, it would surely be fair to say that both sexes are paid equally. And then there is the tricky decision of whether to make the four Grand Slam tournaments the exception to the norm and pay men more. From a physical perspective, the Grand Slams for the men are the ultimate test, with the winner having to progress through seven best of five set matches in a fortnight to become champion. As we’ve seen in recent years, the top players are capable of pushing each other to five, even six hours on court at the end of a gruelling tournament.
This contrasts with the women, where the Grand Slams may paradoxically be less physically challenging than a normal WTA event. In a standard tournament the finalists will play five or six matches in a week, with no rest days in the latter rounds. In a Grand Slam they will play seven matches of the same length in a fortnight, with a rest day between almost every round. Plenty of time to recover, research their next opponent and simply take time to enjoy the cities of Melbourne, Paris, London and New York. It is thus understandable to see some men’s chagrin at being paid no more money to work twice as hard physically on court.
This leads to the question, should women also be playing best of five in the Grand Slams? The Telegraph’s Oliver Brown claims that tennis retains Victorian attitudes to women, arguing for equal pay yet “recycling the original, outrageous myth that the ladies are too frail, too delicate to last five sets like the gentlemen”. He cites the 13 years of year-end championships from 1984 when women played best of five as proof of their capabilities, while also mentioning the recent success of apparently overweight players Marion Bartoli and Anastasia Pavlyuchenkuva. However, when was the last time a woman called for playing best of five? Men’s and women’s bodies are not naturally the same, and very few women would be able to reproduce their best tennis over a longer match.
Therefore perhaps the matter is not a physical one, but a question of whether men and women offer equal entertainment. Gilles Simon argued last summer that “it’s about the show. I believe men’s tennis is more interesting than women’s tennis. You have to be paid on that basis,” also stating that his opinion was shared by all 128 men in the Wimbledon locker room. Perhaps if you compare the average men’s match to the average women’s, you could argue the greater battle of physique and endurance on the men’s side is more compelling. But this is not always the case.
In both draws, there are a number of one-sided matches in the first week. Many of the top women will roll over their opponent in under an hour and quickly get off court to allow the audience the chance to experience a more even contest. When it’s a men’s match, the score line can feel inevitable in the first set, and to watch another two sets of an uneven encounter can almost feel a chore.
When a man comes back from two sets to love down to win a match it can either be a thrilling finale or an almost inevitable collapse from a player unable to bring his aching body over the finish line. However, in women’s tennis the match is always alive. Brown aims a cheap shot at Bartoli’s “puppy fat” but her comeback against the world number one Justine Henin in the 2007 Wimbledon semi-finals was a perfect example of a losing player finding inspiration when a set and a break down to stunningly turn the match around.
Furthermore, less emphasis on the physical nature of a women’s best of three match allows more variety in players. From Bartoli’s unorthodox double-handed forehand to last year’s Wimbledon finalist Agnieszka Radwanska’s drop shots and ‘squat shots’, many women find innovative ways of overcoming the more naturally imposing figures such as Serena Williams. Roger Federer may be the obvious male equivalent, but he has struggled recently over five sets against his more physical rivals in the top four, as the tennis in sets four and five becomes less about skill and more about endurance.
Perhaps instead of arguing that women should be paid less than men, Simon and co should be celebrating the equality of tennis unheralded in any other sport. Tennis is head and shoulders above any other competitive sport in terms of women’s exposure and prize money. It is a year-round game, where audiences flock to stadiums to see the highest quality matches of both sexes. Women receive practically equal media coverage during Grand Slams, and constantly play in front of full crowds, while household names such as Williams and Maria Sharapova enjoy success that other female athletes can only envy.
The biggest pointer is that for many other sports, the fact that women are playing is the defining factor; for example women’s football, women’s cricket. However the word ‘tennis’ encompasses male and female without placing the women as a subset of the standard male game, and for this reason I believe it is fair for men and women to be paid equally.
The National Union of Students held their annual conference in Sheffield City Hall early last week, 8-10th April. The conference saw over 1000 students from over 400 higher education and further education institutions come together to discuss current issues facing students, vote on proposals and elect next year’s NUS representatives.
Toni Pearce, the first NUS President not to study at University Photograph:Will Bunce/ NUS
Toni Pearce was elected NUS President, beating fellow candidates, Vicki Baars, Conservative Peter Smallwood and Samuel Gaus, who was representing the Inanimate Carbon Rod.
Pearce is notable for being the only NUS leader to come from a further education background, previously being union president of Cornwall College.
She ran on a platform of supporting further education students, developing an NUS employment strategy, and building the NUS movement through increased engagement with student unions.
The conference covered issues such as ‘lad culture’ and the on-going struggle with the government over tuition fees. The effectiveness of Demo2012 was examined with outgoing President Liam Burns pointing out in his speech that there are other ways to lobby government.
President of Exeter Labour Students, Daniel Richards agreed with this sentiment saying, “For me, the highlight of the conference was Liam Burns’ stand against pointless demonstrations.” He went on to explain, “The NUS has become more irrelevant in recent years because of the tactics it has used to highlight real issues students are facing and changing its approach could make it a standard-bearer for student issues once more.”
Proposal 701 put forward the introduction of quotas on female representation in the NUS and caused much debate. A majority of delegates voted against the proposal, including Exeter Student Guild President, Nick Davies.
A key incident at the conference also concerned women’s rights and representation. A walk-out occurred during hustings for Vice President of Higher Education when Socialist Worker Party member, Tomas Evans defended the SWP from allegations of rape-apologism. Fellow High Education candidate, Naomi Beecroft, railed against the SWP in her hustings speech saying “It’s a disgrace.”
Further controversy was reported over delegates allegedly applauding when informed of Margaret Thatcher’s death, causing Burns to issue a statement advising delegates “to think very carefully indeed about how [they] respond to this news”.
The conference also featured much criticism of the NUS itself with students criticising the increased careerism within the union. The ineffectiveness of the NUS in representing students was also highlighted, particularly by the campaign of the Inanimate Carbon Rod. The Rod’s representative, Samuel Gaus, ran in order to satirise the superficiality and inaction of the current NUS committee.
Burns spoke of divisions in his speech and NUS attendee, Nathan Akecroft, wrote of the conference: “…the stark fault lines and divisions running through and threatening to tear apart the cumbersome and often-obdurate beast that is our national union were unseamed to their fullest.”
However, though these divisions may remain, the NUS will be taken forward by Pearce who, in her speech, promised “an NUS that’s fighting for our members, not fighting with each other”.
Picture this: A small IT firm set up in Exeter employs four people and due to growing demand for its technical products is looking to employ a fifth member. This will be a skilled job and will require some training, and the interview process has narrowed down the candidates to a 28 year old man and a 28 year old woman with identical skills and potential; who does the firm pick?
Much has been done in terms of employment law in the past decade to address the inequality, both in wages and in treatment between the genders. However, much of the legislation has proved counter-productive and often harmful to prospective female workers, especially for those employed in small businesses. Consider the case of maternity leave. An employer has to pay six weeks of 90% pay and then up to another thirty three of £135.45 a week (or 90% still whichever is lower) for an employee who during that time contributes £0 to the company. That can mean thousands of pounds shelled out to an employee while in the meantime a replacement has to be found. A worker to cover the lost manpower is often very difficult to recruit as the work is only to be for a short period of time and especially for skilled jobs this is often both difficult and expensive.
Furthermore, many women lose the willingness to go back to work and want to stay with their child; while the company’s outlay on maternity pay will be decreased, the disruption of their long term plans is not healthy for business plans. For men, paternity pay can be an inconvenience, but as it only lasts two weeks, the impact on the business is minimal. For large companies employing thousands of workers, the small numbers on leave at any one time, providing they are not in important areas, will have much less effect, but for a small business, especially in harsh times, this can prove catastrophic. So, back to Exeter’s IT firm: why should they employ the woman?
exeposedev 