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”.
This year’s SABBs. Image credit: Exeter Students’ Guild
The announcement of the full list of candidates running for Sabbatical Officers has shown an approximate 50% increase on last year, after 31 students put their name forward.
VP Education and VP Welfare & Diversity have the largest number of nominees – 8 – with VP Activities having 6, AU President 4 and Guild President 5.
The group will now be involved in ‘information week’, which ends on Friday and have until Wednesday to submit their manifestos.
Candidates for each of the roles will be involved in debates between February 1 – February 5 and the results will be announced on February 7th. A full timetable is available on the Students’ Guild website.
Last year, 21 students vied for the sabbatical positions while in 2012, 22 students stood. The elected officers will spend next year leading the Guild in full time positions, representing Exeter students.
Exeposé will be providing extensive coverage of the elections over the coming weeks, using the hashtag #ExeterVote.
A full list of candidates is available below.
Guild President Candidates
Ajay Gaur
Rachael Gillies
Ronnie Henderson
James “The Goat” Hitchings-Hales
Joel Smith
AU President Candidates
Ali Borland
Andy Higham
Indigo Hull
Emily “Robbo” Robinson
VP Activities Candidates
Matthew Bate
Kit Fortheringham
Daniel Richards
Michael Smith
Douglas Statt
Sam Woody
VP Education Candidates
Hannah Barr
Holly Collenette
Jessica Fenlon
Meghan Honeysett
Matthew Mackenzie
Charlotte Rush
Ben Street
Matthew Thatcher
VP Welfare & Diversity Candidates
Charlotte Cooper
Kate Hawkins
Charlie Mackay
Lydia Popiolek
Jaz Sansoye
Katherine Sladden
Spike van der Vliet-Firth
Disun Vera-Cruz (Dis)
Harrison Jones, Online News Editor,
Additional Reporting by Tom Elliott, Online News Editor
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.
First year student and new to politics Matthew Wilcock gives a wonderful insight explaining how he went from knowing nothing about politics at the start of Freshers’ week to finding a political party that suits him.
“Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed.” Photo Credit: George Peck via Compfightcc
Bewildering, over-complicated and irrelevant would have been three words I associated with politics a few weeks ago. I knew little to none about politics but I wanted to get involved. The problem was that political allegiances, which I’m so often told come instinctively, haven’t formed in me at all. So I threw myself out there: at the mercy of the student societies.
The first step was to attend the cross-party debate. With my appetite whet, I decided to give every party a fair chance. I decided to go to an event hosted by the four largest political societies on campus (Socialist Students, Labour Students, Conservative Future and Freedom Society). Finally, I would then choose a party.
I began with SocStu. As with all things ‘uni’, when I heard terms such as “exploiting class”, “revolution” and “utopia” being thrown about, I realised I’d started once more in the deep end. A political ignoramus, I appreciated the introductory talk on “What is Socialism?” but SocStu’s brand of ‘socialism’ was a few shades too red for my liking.
Probing SocStu members at the Ram, I found SocStu’s committee were more than happy to answer by naive questions. (They may have had a few pints more than me.) Dress code errs on the side of casual, far left views not compulsory but encouraged with friendliness and alcohol is in abundance.
Moving on to Labour. “We are MUCH cheaper than CF” – Labour Student’s battle cry, as voiced by Daniel Richards, their president. I sought to find out what Labour stands for. Dan helped me out: “Living standards, education and health care are my big three”. (Perfect: these align with my interests rather well.)
I had my doubts with Labour’s tax proposals and, in some cases seemingly unwavering, stance against big business. Labour offers a relaxed and friendly group of students and therefore it is, all the more so, refreshing that their attitude to politics is very active and organised. Thus, I sought to test the mettle of a few lefties by challenging them with my qualms: I was impressed but ‘wholly convinced’? Not sure. Let’s hold out and see what the others say.
Dan talked about canvassing and leafleting: here we go, tell me about ‘politics proper’! Dan launched off: “Exeter MP Ben Bradshaw … many contacts and resources … be more involved in national politics”. Harry Chamberlain, chairman of Conservative Future, sounded similar: “largest youth wing of any political party … get involved… opportunities… over 18,000 members”. Both party leaders have evidently been well trained!
It was time to attend a Freedom Society event. Cautiously making my way across the Ram after the EU debate to Rory Broomfield, Director of ‘Better Off Out’, I felt brave. A week ago, I was unable to say much about the EU, but I had spent the night before in a ‘Google frenzy’: ‘What is the EU?’ ‘Better in or out?’ ‘UKIP economic policies?’ ‘Nigel Farage’ led me to ‘Farage Boasts of beating Ball Cancer’ … I’d read enough. Pro-EU, then as now, I came to blows with Rory and the surrounding Freedom members. Neither could I stomach Freedom’s EU stance nor their thinly veiled nationalism.
Attending a Conservative Future event, I immediately felt underdressed. There was a strict adherence to the clichéd Tory dress code of shirts and blazers. Harry gave me his own three areas of politics where he thought the Tories trounced Labour: “Education, Welfare and Jobs”. ‘For hard working people’ ran the tagline at the Conservative conference and the CF members believe this- a handful “seeking independence from the ‘Bank of Mum and Dad”- I’m not quite there yet.
I initially thought CF at Exeter could likely boast the broadest consensus of a party on campus after hearing ‘Cameroon’ used as both vitriolic criticism and truly complimentary. I felt there was room for me to put across a case against Tory policy on welfare, housing and the EU. I convinced one person: myself. The more I spoke to Tory members about policy, the more I saw myself arguing against them, swaying to the left.
Could this possibly be that political instinct I’d been so long deprived of? I came to a conclusion. I joined Labour (and hope to promote myself further to the position of party stalwart.) My three words about politics: “Exciting, integral and irresistible”.
Did anybody else investigate all of the politcal societies? Can you really be informed enough to commit yourself to one party in such a short space of time? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
Exeposé Comment‘s Debate Correspondent Fiona Potigny reviews Friday night’s Debating Society‘s record attended debate discussing Margaret Thatcher’s global legacy.
With this week’s motion being, “This house believes that Margaret Thatcher was a global force for good” and Katie Hopkins heading up the proposition, it’s no wonder that the Debating Society felt the need to upgrade from the Moot Room to Newman A in order to accommodate a record attendance.
“Now, who thinks I’m a complete cow?” – Katie Hopkins Photo Credits: University of Exeter Debating Society
It was surprising that the initial vote of conscience was dominated by abstentions. Here would be where the final votes mattered, and each side would have to battle to convince the uncertain in order to win a majority.
Percy Prowse, Conservative Councillor for Pennsylvania and Duryard, opened by tracing the life of this “humble grocer’s daughter” to a “lonely old lady suffering from dementia”. Although this did serve to tug the audience’s heartstrings, it did not inherently support the motion. Whilst short snatches of his speech did pertain to the “global good” clause, such as Thatcher’s Cold War efforts, putting Great Britain on the world map, and forging an important relationship with the US, Prowse’s discourse primarily dwelled on his picket line experience as a policeman in the 1980s.
“Percy the Police Officer” – the name post-debate Ram-goers later used to refer to him owing to his constant prefixing of “when I was a police officer”– was incredibly endearing; clad in a green checked short-sleeve shirt with his hair a little ruffled compared to his suited counterparts, there was a hopeless charm about him that allowed his stumbling over a question on “Section 28” to be met with audience “awws” rather than infuriation over his apparent ignorance. (Over the same blunder, Hopkins’ was not met as lightly).
Leader of the South West Trade Union Coalition Nigel Costley, began, “This woman was divisive.” Whilst Costley’s speech did not centre as much around trade unions as expected, like Prowse many of his points did not extend beyond the UK. Nevertheless, the audience were noticeably shocked by his mention of Thatcher’s homophobic policy, and the fact that under her, child poverty increased from a sixth to a third. Though he acknowledged her strong leadership in the Falklands War and her engagement in the fight against the Soviets, he claimed that she was “lucky with her enemies” and that any politician would have had to rise to the same challenge.
Costley then ended on the point that Thatcher was not the feminist symbol many assume her to be. After rising to the top, “she kicked the ladder from beneath her, only appointing one woman to cabinet”. On the whole, Costley was clearly well-researched and thus peppered his dialogue with facts and figures. This, however, was not the best tactic in terms of engaging the audience, though perhaps this was more due to anticipation for the next speaker.
Met with boos Apprentice ‘star’ and all-round controversy causer Katie Hopkins took to the stand. “Is this panto?” she joked. “If it is, you’re the witch!” one heckler snapped back. It was going to be thatkind of evening and the audience were set to lap up as much drama as possible. After briefly inquiring what proportion of the audience “thinks [she’s] a cow”, mocking Costley’s “dull list of dreariness”, and threatening audience member Ollie that she would sit on his lap unless he swayed his opinion, Hopkins launched her passionate laudation of “Mrs T: The Woman”.
Although she referred to Thatcher’s Falklands and Iron Curtain victories and her power coalition with Reagan, Hopkins tended to only discuss Thatcher’s personality, caricaturising her as “someone who would update their Facebook profile with varicose veins rather than pretty pictures”. Naturally, the entertainment value was fantastic, but did not seem to sway the audience in her favour. Questions provoked further hilarity, although more serious points were often skirted around with parroted parts of her opening speech.
Alison Seabeck was the last to speak, opening with, “we’ve had the entertainment, now time for the facts.” Seabeck attacked Thatcher for “permanently souring” the UK’s relationship with Europe, selling £350 million worth of arms to Saddam Hussein, declining to place economic sanctions on South Africa, as well as maintaining murky relations with Pinochet, amongst other more domestic criticisms.
Crucially, Seabeck was the only speaker to fully address the “global” aspect of the motion, which is likely to have ultimately swung the audience in the opposition’s favour, and impressively held her own against Hopkins, who constantly attacked her party of “idiots”. She remained self-assured at all points in the debate, and calmly asserted that, whilst she accepted that Labour was not perfect, this was not relevant to the motion in question.
In the end, a head-count was not necessary as the opposition took the debate by an overwhelming majority. The debate saw the highest attendance since 1893, proving that DebSoc are off to a good start this year.
Fiona Potigny
[poll id=”40″]
Did you attend last Friday’s debate? Is this an accurate version of events? Was Katie Hopkins an appropriate choice for this debate? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.
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”.
NUS President Liam Burns told students at the annual NUS conference in Sheffield yesterday that they face a three-pronged attack on their futures, with the UK economy edging towards a triple dip recession.
Amongst the 1,000 delegates were five Exeter representatives, including outgoing President Nick ‘Welshy’ Davies.
Burns told the congregation that “the real triple dip recession” facing young people is a lack of “opportunities, jobs and prospects.”
Labelling the job market an “abyss” for young people, he said:
“The current youth jobs crisis is not simply a recessionary ‘blip’ but a long-term and deep seated problem. Our labour market is failing to deliver economic prosperity, social justice and wellbeing for the majority.”
Nationally, figures are more disheartening, with 672,000 16-24 year olds remaining unemployed and 1.62 million 18-24 year olds “economically inactive.”
Alongside warning against a looming “summer of misery,” which is likely to see youth unemployment pass 1 million nationally, Burns told the conference that the NUS needed to make greater gender equality another priority.
Despite criticising government initiatives such as the trebling of tuition fees and scrapping of EMA, he also stressed the need for realistic campaigns.
The three day conference will see national issues debated and a new NUS committee elected. No Exeter affiliated students are standing.
As such, delegates will be disappointed that the event has not receive more widespread publicity thus far, in the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death; the news of which sparked controversial cheers from some delegates.
Even with limited media coverage, Burns will nonetheless hope that his words can influence the body’s agenda in the coming months and galvanise the membership into making a significant impact upon government policy.
exeposedev 