The Kiwi
I jumped at the chance to co-edit the college magazine because I loved the theme. I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be radical in the context of a university experience. First of all, I think I have to make clear that If I were truly a radical, I would have turned down a place at this university. “The master’s tools can never dismantle the master’s house” Audre Lorde said it best. In an ideal world, instead of working to change systems from the inside, we’d just tear them down and start again. By being here, I am allowing and enabling the continuation of an exclusionary and classist university structure in which Oxbridge is viewed as the pinnacle of success. A system I am sure I will benefit from when I (hopefully) graduate with a degree from this illustrious institution. I am a walking contradiction, I’m about to try and explain what I think it means to be radical whilst not really being radical myself. Hey, at least I’m aware of my own hypocrisy. The way I try to make myself feel better, and indeed I would encourage all people from marginalised groups to do the same, is to think that by existing in an elitist institution like Cambridge as anything other than a cis white middle class able bodied heterosexual male, you are doing something radical. You are surviving in a system that was not built for you to succeed.
The Kiwi Editors’ Foreword
‘Radical’ is the theme of this edition. There is a danger when you are a student at Cambridge, given its illustrious history and powerful institutional status, to become inward looking. This edition hopes to uncover the passionate beliefs and insightful world experiences of the people living and working here. For me, radicalism is about breaking the status quo and because of this, it regularly recieves negative social attention. The social hierarchy we all play a part in is made up of our decisions and aesthetic judgements both conscious and unconscious. Here in Cambridge we have cultural capital and skills of critical analysis to really engage with our own identities and the identities of those around us. This is power and with great power comes great responsibility. It is only by staying engaged, pushing boundaries, and thinking beyond what we have been taught that we can hope to learn more about ourselves and lessen the effects of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia and all other forms of discrimination that are present in our society. The person next to you could be our next Prime Minister. Talk to them about what they believe in and challenge yourself. - Georgina Ogilvie
Whether you choose to adopt political stances or not, every action you make in this place is political. You have not slipped under the net, you are not an exception, you deserve to be here. Welcome, take a seat.
University is supposed to be about having fun, right? Escaping oppressive small towns, exploring interests and identities, meeting new people, the list goes on and on. So, what does it mean to get to the place where you’re supposed to be free of restrictions and inhibitions and make the conscious choice to identify yourself as political? To share posts and articles about the racism that your own university perpetuates; tell men that their opinions on feminism are sometimes not needed or wanted, to call out patronising “allies,” to tell someone that they’re harmless banter is really perpetuating harmful stereotypes. To go to that campaign rally, to run for secretary of Cambridge Labour society. It means losing friends and gaining new ones. I’ve realised that sometimes, being radical means sacrificing popularity. Being unashamedly committed to principles that not everyone cares about can isolate you quite a bit. You become the butt of the joke, “Oh, don’t say that racist/sexist/ableist/transphobic thing too loudly, [insert name here] might hear you!” As if, had you not been there, said joke would be acceptable. People think that you can’t take a joke. They think that the sole thing that defines you is your radical belief in X,Y,Z and so, speak to you only about X,Y,Z. For me, these are small prices to pay if it means getting people to get people to think critically about the interlocking systems that make up our society. I’ve found that going against the status quo or even being vocal about causes that you care about makes people think of you as a volatile political animal; to be avoided at all costs (unless of course you want to debate) and because I’m a black woman, inevitably the word “scary” and “angry” get thrown in there a couple of times. As if it is possible for me to anything but angry with a world in which racism and gendered oppression are things that affect my experiences every single day. Sometimes, being radical means saying things that people don’t want to hear. I’m sure we’d all love to believe that our education system is truly meritocratic and our places at this university were given to us based solely on our own hard work. Unfortunately, that is just not the case; to state otherwise is to completely ignore the social forces that work in some people’s favour whilst working against others. Sometimes, being radical means admitting that you don’t have all the answers, that the problem might even be greater than an “answer” “solution” format. It means engaging in tiresome debate, reading around your eurocentric curriculum, exercising skills in empathy. It means having a fire that the world, 9-5 work, kids, partners and dogs cannot extinguish. Cambridge is allowing me the space and time to be radical. I cannot think of a better environment for anyone’s ideas and opinions to develop. Here i’ve met people who have consistently challenged my thinking both academically and personally and for that, I am forever grateful. So friends as you can probably tell, I think there is some merit in being radical.. Place your whole weight behind your beliefs. Whatever form your activism and beliefs take, be prepared to stay up late into the night arguing about them. They matter.
-Lola Olufemi
Contents • Do You Know The Feeling? • Radicalism - do we need it? • Homelessness in Cambridge • Experience - опыт • The Power of Graffiti • Radical Christianity • The State of Modern Football • The May 2015 General Election
• ‘Bring Up The Bodies’
Do you know the feeling? Community? Connections? Pushed out, slowly and silently. Labels. Looks. Omissions. Nothingness. The cold exterior of apathy. The slow ticking of time. White noise. All directions. All the time. Getting louder. Nothing. Again. Cold. Sad. But, like deep down. I don’t need anyone? I thought they were... A sigh. Do you know the feeling? Ayrton Dhillon
RADICALISM - WHY DO WE NEED IT? I would suggest that radical beliefs are often viewed by a society at a particular time as ‘weird’.
Joseph Overton characterises 6 stages in the development of policy: unthinkable, then radical, then acceptable, then sensible, then popular, then actual policy. One can look back at a a policy such as equal marriage, thankfully now adopted in the UK, and see the processes that are involved in such a development. Perhaps it can almost be viewed as a generational change with our grandparents viewing it as acceptable, parents seeing it as sensible, and us viewing it as popular. Similar changes in social norms have accompanied policy introductions time and time again; one need only look at the abolition of slavery, the abolition of capital punishment and women’s suffrage. Some might disagree with the order of stages, Finnemore and Sikkink suggest an alternative process in their ‘norm cascade for example, but most models tend to recognise the importance of radicalism in the process. There is a large amount of psychological research suggesting that we have a cognitive bias against ‘weird’ ideas (the absurdity heuristic) and ideas not currently held by the majority (ideas without social proof). An awareness of this can help us to judge ideas more fairly and rationally. Philosophers Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord have come up with the ‘reversal test’, which aims to balance the status quo bias: the natural preference for the current state of affairs. The basic idea is to ask, when critiquing a change, whether a change of the same parameter in the opposite direction would have a negative effect. If so, the onus is on the critic to explain why the initial change won’t have a positive effect. Here’s a simplified hypothetical example: some people want to raise the motorway speed limit from 70mph to 80mph, a suggestion that provokes criticism. So we ask, would a reduction from 70mph to 60mphtherefore have a positive effect? If the critics cannot argue that it does, the onus is then on the critics themselves to explain why increasing above 70mph will have a negative effect. Bostrom and Ord also suggest the ‘double reversal’ test, which further questions status quo bias.
So, what current radical views could become future policies or norms? It is impossible to know for sure, but perhaps the idea that privileged people in rich countries give a reasonable proportion of their income to charity may become a norm, along with widespread adoption of low-meat diets, for example. Other suggestions include the idea of open borders (in a more equal world), universal basic income, the abolishment of gendered language, an increase in animal rights, putting more resources into mitigation of existential risk and pursuit of transhumanist ideas of super longevity, super intelligence and super wellbeing. I am not expecting that most people support everything in that list (I don’t think I do)- if they were completely uncontroversial they would not be radical - but there are certainly a significant number of people advocating each one of those suggestions. Without past radical thinkers and radical beliefs, our society would be so much worse off. I see it is our duty as privileged citizens to radically question the way the world is, and indeed the way it should be, with an open mind. Perhaps, however, some of us have an unhealthy obsession with questioning the status quo too much, maybe there is a balance to be struck between this radical questioning and moderate conservatism. Carl Sagan sums it up quite nicely by suggesting, ‘It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out’. Yes, dream the future, but don’t forget to live the present, something that in our age is often far easier said than done.
of diversity of political and economic views The lack is dangerous, leaving us in a ‘closed ideology echo chamber’ (Thomas G. Clark), This is aggravated by the mainstream media. Noam Chomsky sums up the issue; “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum”. Debates we see on Question Time and Prime Minister’s Questions epitomise this situation. The illusion is created that we have there is choice and debate, but the mainstream parties (including UKIP) offer no real alternative to the economic status-quo. We must not let the politicians and the media get away with framing the debate on their own narrow terms labelling everything outside the neoliberal avenue as extreme. If we are to continue to believe that we live in a diverse democracy, we must allow the alternative, ‘radical’, voices to be heard, especially when there is such a demand forr an is such a demand for this alternatives.
It is important to remember how right-wing politics in modern-day Britain is. The left-right spectrum is a simplistic view of politics, but it can be helpful to situate political parties on the political compass in order to put things in a wider perspective than our current state of affairs. I remember being shocked when I first saw this graph, which really does show the current lack of economic diversity between the three main parties. From all perspectives, Labour’s move to almost as far right as the Conservatives ought to ring alarm bells from a sheer democratic perspective.
This first graph may be a few years out of date, but the 2015 version here shows that all three main parties still occupy a strongly neoliberal stance. Whether you think neoliberalism is an effective economic system or not, all parties who have governed in the last 25 years (since Margaret Thatcher), have more or less accepted it without question, to the extent that those who question it (such as the Green Party) are labelled as economically extreme. It may be interest*It doesn’t help that the field of economics itself has long ing to point out that, according to politicalcompass.com, the Greens been lacking in diversity and sufficient self-criticism, instead are no more economically left-wing than Labour (let alone the Tories) working within the neoclassical theory than underpins neolibare right-wing, but it is just as important is to accept the notion that eralism. the current mainstream economic view is a highly ideological stance. It seems crazy that we have not regulated the financial services that When the current economic system works in the have wreaked so much havoc over the economy, it seems crazy that favour of those with financial clout, with Britain’s richest 1% governments pursue mindless GDP growth at the expense of our enholding the same wealth as the poorest 55%, it is no wonder vironment and even (currently) at the expense of living standards for that those in positions of power want to paint radical change the average person, and it seems crazy that we have allowed so much in a bad light. Association of the radical with the extreme may power to be held by such a small number in control of big businesses, go back a long time, but it is certainly prominent today. The at the expense of democracy. Opposing these views does not make me events of the 20th Century have (quite rightly, in my opinion), someone who necessarily opposes capitalism itself and I would not left us suspicious of extremism, whether on the left or the class myself as an extremist, but I do see radical change in the way right. Thus the labelling of parties offering radical change, our economy is run as a necessity for a better world. such as The Green Party, as extremists is an act of fear mongering on the part of the establishment.. A shocking example of this was the inclusion of Green Party peer Jenny Jones in a database of ‘domestic extremists’ by the Met Police. The Green Party strives for radical change, but I would argue it is far less extreme ideologically than the Tories or UKIP for example.
- John Bachelor
HOMELESSNESS IN CAMBRIDGE H
omelessness is very visible in Cambridge. I think this has something to do with the small geography of the city centre, combined with the uncomfortable juxtaposition of the money drenched spires of the university colleges and the unsexy poverty of the homeless individuals begging beneath them. This contrast serves as a constant reminder of the fact that the U.K is one of the most unequal countries in the advanced capitalist core; the UK is the only G7 country to record rising wealth inequality in the years 2000-2014. The rich here are becoming richer faster than ever. But let’s not forget, winners create losers, and in this modern, globalised form of capitalism that we live (and die), the losers are suffering in relation to their affluent counterparts more than ever.
Figures released in February show that there are 55% more rough sleepers in the UK now than when David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010.
T
his recent phenomenon is relevant when considering one’s own position as a privileged Cambridge undergraduate destined for investment banking, or management consultancy, or government, or the BBC, or some other upper echelon. It only takes a wrong combination or accumulation of factors in one’s life and one becomes vulnerable to being tipped into homelessness given that so many of the safety nets have been withdrawn; in 2014 there were fewer than 40,000 hostel beds in England, a figure that had fallen by roughly 10% in the four years prior due to spending cuts. This desperate situation has gone some way in challenging the poisonous view that the destitute are somehow different to ‘us’, that they are lesser and responsible for their demise, and therefore undeserving of any meaningful help. Homelessness is not the result of bad decision-making by an individual, but is a symptom of a country that refuses to care adequately for its vulnerable people. However, there is also reason to suspect that we, as a society, continue to despise
homeless people because they bring us face to face with the fact we, as individuals, are continually on the brink of insolvency. One architectural example, anti-homeless spikes, although generating significant protest, are very obvious physical manifestations of society’s contempt for those living on the streets. Ultimately, most of us here, at Cambridge University, will never experience the sadness that is homelessness. We have a privileged education and bright prospects. Cambridge overwhelmingly accepts students from economic and social backgrounds characterised by strong support networks and prosperity, and then furthers these advantages through the education and contacts it provides. Unsurprisingly, the homeless are typically drawn from already vulnerable sections of society and homelessness serves to make them more defenceless- the average life expectancy of someone living on the streets is just 47. It is important that we remember this social fact as we gaze from our sets across the striped lawn of Old Court.
I It only takes a wrong combination or accumulation of factors in one’s life and one becomes vulnerable to being tipped into homelessness.
ndeed, the Tory-led Government has presided over the lowest levels of housebuilding in peacetime since the 1920s, resulting in a drop in the number of affordable homes. Add this to the government’s £7bn cut in housing benefit and draconian welfare reforms, and it is understandable how literally thousands of people are finding themselves sleeping rough every night. And it is not just drug addicts, the mentally ill, and offenders- those people society tends not to care about- that are winding up on the streets. People who never imagined they would be without shelter, professionals and the formerly well-to-do, are increasingly facing the miserable reality of a concrete floor and a starry ceiling.
In 2014 there were fewer than 40,000 hostel beds in England, a figure that had fallen by roughly 10% in the four years prior due to spending cuts.
- Hattie Read
EXPERIENCE; опыт (opit)
I
will never forget the people who were kind to me. The children I taught were the friendliest and brightest children I have ever encountered. They don’t know the difference they actually made to my life, and that they were the best part of my job. A few months into the job, the school carried out the government’s obligatory medical tests for teachers in the classrooms (many of which were questionable – I flat out refused to undergo the ‘gynaecological examination’). I was questioned by a psychologist who took a shine to me, as, by the end of our three-minute conversation, she had invited me round for dinner the next evening! It was my nicest evening in Samara – they gave me apple cake and tea, dug out family photo albums, and chatted to me for hours in Russian.
I
was able to see a Russia that few people have – the year abroaders in Moscow can’t comprehend how different Samara was. While I was appalled at the racism and treatment of some people and animals, it’s foolish to discount the views and mind-sets of those living in provincial Russia. I met many intelligent, kind and fascinating people, and it is so important to be aware of how they see life, even if I don’t agree with it.
I’m Arabella and I am currently on my year abroad in Russia. In August I moved to Samara, a city in central Russia on the Volga River. I taught English at a school there until Christmas. Right now, I am studying in Moscow. ‘Radical’ is, in many ways, an accurate word to describe my year abroad. As anyone who followed my snapchat story will know, Samara is a harsh place. I have a vivid memory of hugely looking forward to a day out visiting Samara zoo. However, walking into the grey, concrete, outdoor enclosure, shivering in the early October snow, I saw a huge bear pressed up against the bars of its tiny cage, immobile, tears oozing out of its bloodshot eyes.
A
few weeks later, with a slightly sour smile on my face, I read a fellow year abroader’s blog entry on the cultural shock and difficulties they’d experienced queuing and ordering croissants in Paris. On my walk home on that particular day, I encountered a rabid stray dog in the entrance of a supermarket. A passerby casually pulled out his gun and shot it. I was faced with daily decisions, like ‘is a dismembered hand appropriate for snapchat?’* Yet, while I may gleefully trot out stories about sanctions and sinkholes and the deep brown water that could give you a stomach worm, it’s lazy of me. Yes, I was unlucky enough to see some horrific things that were on the extreme end of the spectrum. But, horrific things can happen anywhere, and up to then, I had just been privileged enough not to encounter them. Samara was a normal, functioning city - there were parks and cafes, theatres and fountains, and a lovely beach on the banks of the Volga River.
I fielded questions from the children like “Miss Adams, what is communism?” Reading the news about Russia on the Internet was off-putting – article after article suggested that we were on the brink of war with a rigidly controlled, terrifying country. It really didn’t feel like a country on the brink of war - life just happened.
M
y time in Samara taught me a lot; now I really know how fortunate I am. Even when things were hard, my troubles were still nothing compared to the old ladies selling plastic cups of berries in the freezing cold streets, or the student from Kenya who would get thrown off the marshrutka buses at full speed. I got a taster of the adult life that is looming on the horizon for all of us. There is responsibility, accountability and periods of loneliness too, but you’ll manage – we all will. Nothing is permanent, and there is comfort in knowing that you can cope with the troughs as well as the peaks. The fact that you probably won’t be doing a job you’re very unqualified for in provincial Russia should help! I spent the Lent term in Cambridge to recover from Samara, and am now enjoying the sweet student life in Moscow (which is a really great city). Living in Russia has been a piece of cake compared to the shock of a full time job to my pampered self. When I think of getting up for a long day of work every morning at 6am…bring back the dismembered hand! * No, it isn’t (shockingly). ** I coined this.
R
ussia is a country of extremes – incredible beauty and luxury lie side by side with inescapably grim aspects of daily life and severe weather. In actual fact, the change of country was not nearly as radical for me as the change in my situation: going from a cosseted, social existence in Selwyn, to being an adult living alone in an apartment in the depths of Russia, with my first real full-time job. Terrifyingly, I was a primary school teacher, in charge of disciplining and educating classes of up to 30 students at a time. Samara was a closed city until 1991, and the older generation in particular were not enthused about having a young, foreign girl in their midst, sometimes the first foreigner they had ever encountered. I quickly learnt that it was best to keep quiet in public. I was incredibly touched by how much effort friends from Selwyn put into staying in daily contact with me, and have no idea what I would have done without that, but Skype and texts could never compare to being around the people. Weekends were the worst of all – two days of complete silence in my own company, desperately trying to escape by reading novel after novel. Drifting from café to café by myself, surrounded by people who spoke a different language and lived in a very different way, I felt like I didn’t exist. Things were pretty trajikistan** at times, but life went on. I learnt it was best not to compare my experiences to what other people were doing with their time out of Cambridge (year abroad envy is a very real thing!)
- Arabella Adams
THE POWER OF GRAFFITI As a languages’ student, I have had the opportunity to spend the third year of my degree studying in Madrid. It has been an invaluable experience for many reasons, not least for having exposed me to a different university and its student culture. My first encounter with the culture here at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid was an extremely visual one, and it is that visual experience that I would like to share with you. I was pearl-clutching shocked at the widespread presence of graffiti throughout the campus upon my first visit. My surprise clearly stemmed from having spent the previous years of my degree surrounded by fastidiously-maintained listed buildings, but that does not necessarily explain why I initially viewed this graffiti as evidence of a kind of black mark against its writers’ character, and as a show of disrespect towards the institution where they were receiving their higher education. Graffiti has long been an expression of political dissent, but the students here at the UCM have taken it a step further: owing to the closed nature of the university community, students have been able to use the university buildings’ walls as a kind of notebook, calendar and debate chamber. They can inform the student body of upcoming strikes and marches, advertise their websites and write over the slogans of others’ campaigns. But apart from informing, organising and often amusing each other with this graffiti, the student body is also doing something even bolder: by the very act of marking their environment, the students lay claim to it. “Whose University?” you ask? “Ours,” they answer. It was only after having experienced the many strikes and demonstrations here, having spoken with other students and with faculty members about why these were happening, having asked what the new slogan that had appeared outside overnight meant, that I began to understand that my initial reaction to the campus’ graffiti was an ignorant one...
Public universities in Spain such as the UCM have suffered cuts in funding and in staff pay, and are currently battling an unpopular proposed move to change the structure of degrees so that undergraduate degrees last three years instead of four, and masters two instead of one. Masters programmes are more expensive than undergraduate degrees, which, coupled with a general increase in fees and cuts in scholarships, means that access to higher education is becoming more limited. The Sindicato de Estudiantes (Student Union) has declared that the current government wishes to “throw the children of workers out of the University”. Any of that sound familiar? The UCM student body refuses to allow these decisions to take place without their voice being heard, and since, as they say, possession is nine-tenths of the law, marking their university with graffiti is not actually a bad way to assert their position. It is a flexing of their political muscles. The graffiti probably also keeps politics alive in every student’s mind; no-one can be ignorant of when the next demonstration will be when the date is sprawled across the main entrance. The expression of far-left political views such as anarchism and feminism, as well as the debate surrounding Spanish Christian identity, are markers of the character of the University and of the people to whom it really belongs. The Whose University? debate currently being borne out in Cambridge can find its twin in nearly any city in the world nowadays as students organise, demonstrate and lay claim to their higher education institutions. We can offer each other solidarity, inspiration and advice. Now, I am not suggesting that anyone take a can to Hall or the Chapel, but we can come up with our own solutions to the problem of taking ownership of our colleges, which are, for so many, our homes.
- Katie Sim
‘...graffiti was not a show of disrespect towards their university; but an attempt to save it.’
RADICAL CHRISTIANITY “Who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
I
f Russell Brand and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn agree on something, there’s a very serious possibility that they might be right. And they do agree on one very radical thing, radical in the original sense that it’s to do with the roots. (I’m guessing that ‘radish’ is an etymological cousin…) More specifically, it’s to do with the root of the problem. I mean the big, timeless problems that appear throughout history in so many different forms and don’t seem to be going away; sectarianism, prejudice, oppression, revenge. Here’s what Brand said: “I would say that when you are condemning murderers or paedophiles is to acknowledge that within us all is the capacity for evil … to acknowledge that the thing in them that has manifest as negativity is also within us, and our first duty is to negotiate with the negativity within ourselves, and if we can successfully negotiate with that then we can create a better society.” And here’s what Solzhenitsyn said: “If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
A while ago I wrote a blog about
the problem of loneliness. Or maybe not loneliness so much as isolation, fakeness – we’re in this insanely sociable environment but for so many people so much of the time we just can’t be real, we can’t be vulnerable, we just pretend and get on with it.
And I wanted to do something about that. But when I talked to people about what to do we’d go round in circles because ultimately the only thing that could solve the real problem was individual people, genuinely trusting and being trustworthy. And you can’t program that.
I
think a similar thing about massive issues like sexism and racism – there’s a huge amount that can and must be achieved by big picture stuff: legal reform, education programs, awareness campaigns. But the huge thing, the heart of the problem that we long to put right, is not just an external behaviour that you can legislate against – it’s the deep down tendency in the human heart to see people that aren’t the same as us as competitors, as opponents, to wans to label them as ‘other’ and then believe that we are better than them. It’s a deep, deep thing and it’s hard to reach. And it’s not just ‘out there’ - what’s really frightening is that I see that same instinct drawing me to do exactly the same thing – to label people as ‘misogynists’ and ‘bigots’ so that I can look down on them. Ultimately I think we find ourselves facing the uncomfortable fact that we won’t destroy evil and injustice by drawing battle lines between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and beating ‘them’. We’ve tried that, pretty thoroughly. But instead, Solzhenitsyn is right, Brand is right – the problem is not just out there in those people it’s inside us too and “who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
And that, to me, smells like real hope. Not because I don’t think education, and legal reform, and everything else we can just go and do doesn’t matter. It does. It’s huge – and I’m not expecting the whole world to get rooted in Jesus any time soon so in the mean time we should press on with every program we can think of. But because I don’t believe that’s the most we can hope for.
T
his is why, outrageous as it might sound, I think we need Christianity: because it’s radical. I believe that we are right to feel that the world should not be this way, it should be better. I believe that we are right to feel that people shouldn’t be this way; we shouldn’t be self-obsessed or self-righteous or selfish; we shouldn’t be lonely, or lost, or forgotten. And I might be wrong but I think that Christianity is the only thought-out worldview that makes sense of us feeling those things and then gives us something more than just a to-do list or a self-help guide to try and make it better.
M
e and my mate Naffy used to hate each other. We really did – we were at sixth form together and we were two big personalities with completely opposite types of Christianity and we just grated, badly. I thought he was a prick and he thought I had characteristics of the Antichrist. But in the summer before year 13, I felt like God wanted me to change that. I realised that we were, in reality, brothers, and I should at least make an effort to act like it. And when I saw him, I was just about to go over and say this, when he suddenly came over to me and said he was sorry. He apologised for how he’d behaved the last year and he said that over the summer God I think the roots really matter. And I think that the root of our had really shown him that we should forgive each other, and social problems is a problem in our hearts, and the root of the work together, and try to love each other. And so we gave it problem with our hearts is – to be blunt - that we don’t love a go, and he is genuinely my best mate now. It’s cheesy but I’d God. And in turning away from him and in on ourselves, every- take a bullet for him. And I know that’s just a tiny thing but it thing’s got twisted. But then the thing is, Jesus turns up – and smells like hope to me. he’s rooted in something different. He’s startlingly selfless, and he is courageous, and he is recklessly undiscriminating, and joy I think there is a kind of radical change that is really and life and love literally pour out of him. And then he dies, and possible. That is so much tinier than our laws and he says he’s dying for us. He says, yes it is that bad. Yes, you are sick at the root and you’re dying. But in the very same moment our plans but so much bigger at the same time. It he says, ‘Father, forgive them’, he says ‘Come to me’. He says the has the power to change who we are right at the old you needs to die but if you’ll come to me I’ll do the dying for core. I think we need new roots. What do you reckyou, and you can share my roots – you can be rooted in me and on? my Father’s love, passionate and pure, and let it grow you into my new life. He says, ‘You must be born again.’
- Mike Hood
THE
‘BEAUTIFUL’
Let it be said – the Premier League has become the preserve of the middle classes, the product of a gradual change which has vehemently ripped the soul out of the top level of football. How has this been allowed to happen, what does it mean, and how can we solve the stark issue lying before us? Since the creation of the Premier League in 1992, initially separating the nation’s top 22 clubs (now 20) from the rest of the Football League, football has witnessed a progressive alienation of the game’s traditional fan base – the working class. The Premier League was conceived as a means of reinvigorating the game by attracting foreign talent and broadcasting matches across a worldwide platform. The league has indeed surpassed all financial targets – to the extent that in February, a £5.14 billion 3-year deal was signed by Sky and BT, guaranteeing them rights to televising a certain number of games. £4.2 billion of this came from Sky, meaning that for each match that they televise, they will pay a staggering £11 million to the Premier League. The Premier League itself is a private company owned by 20 shareholders (the owners of the 20 member clubs), thus meaning that this exorbitant amount of cash is being delivered to the clubs themselves. Yet the cheapest adult matchday ticket offered by Chelsea costs £50 – only £2 short of 8 hours pay on the minimum wage. The injustice of this is patently obvious – the only person willing to sacrifice this much of their income to this end would severely compromise their own wellbeing and likely plunge themselves into debt. You might now ask – why should football be accessible to all? Going to the opera is not, after all. The crux of the problem lies here – since 1992, the Premier League has cultivated an atmosphere whereby profit is regarded as the ultimate goal, and the fan is reduced to an ant crushed under the league’s own boot. On a worldwide scale it is the working class fan who gives football the significance it has. One need look no further than the Emirates or Stamford Bridge to understand this. At grounds where middle-class professionals now predominate over bricklayers and gardeners, there simply exists no atmosphere at all.
The fans feel no connection with the players who are on contracts earning them six-figure sums every week. Such a situation stands in vivid contrast to that of the 70s, when players travelled to away matches on the very same trains as the fans. Nowadays the league attracts foreign investors with no discernible interest in football other than for the financing of their numerous other businesses and breeds players whose arrogance would render them unwanted and despised in any other arena of life. Football should foster unity and equality – not class division and resentment. The beautiful game should be accessible to all, and it is high time that we looked across to Germany for a model of what we once had and what our country needs once again. As game continues to sell its soul, the German league, Bundesliga has acquired something of a Mecca status among British fans. It is now estimated that at each of Borussia Dortmund’s home games, almost one thousand Brits are in attendance – and with good reason. The passion and romance found in Dortmund’s Westfalenstadion is something which has long deserted the top tier of English football. Here, around 30,000 of the stadium’s total capacity of 80,000 pay around £11 for their matchday ticket, and those in possession of the cheapest category of season ticket pay less than £150 to watch their club from August through to May. Meanwhile in England, the cheapest season ticket offered by Arsenal stands at no less than £1,014. The accessibility of German football extends beyond the price of a ticket as well – tickets sold by the majority of Bundesliga clubs include rail travel to and from the game, food is far cheaper, and a pint of beer will set you back no more than £2. All of this stems from a rule dictating that 51% of each club must be owned by the fans of the club. The club’s board of delegates is elected by the shareholders (the majority of whom are simply average fans) and thus fan associations always have a direct say on the management of the club.
GAME One striking example of the connection felt between players and fans occurred earlier this year on a frosty February evening at the Westfalenstadion. After performing woefully below expectations against a traditionally weaker Augsburg side and slipping to a one-nil defeat, the 25,000 fans in the stadium’s famous Südtribüne (South Stand) were understandably frustrated, and vociferously made their displeasure known to their players. What happened next was something unimaginable for the Premier League – Mats Hummels, the captain, and Roman Weidenfeller, the team’s goalkeeper, made their way to the foot of the stand in order to soak up the criticism and remonstrations of their fans. They genuinely wanted to listen to what their fans had to say. Can you imagine Wayne Rooney and Robin van Persie doing that last season when Manchester United suffered a similarly catastrophic decline in results? No. Of course not. Because the Premier League has conditioned them to distance themselves from those who really care. Despite this display of discontent from the Südtribüne, what is evident is that they love their club unconditionally. This club is the heartbeat of the city.
Let one statistic convince you of this – when they reached the Champions League final just a few years ago, they were allotted around 24,000 tickets for the game. They received no fewer than 502,567 applications for these tickets. The population of the city stands at around 580,000. Without exaggeration, almost everyone who lives there takes great pride in their club. And best of all, everyone can afford to. It is far more than a mere means of entertainment, and thus deserves to be treated so. It represents a manifestation of local culture and identity – something in which everyone should be entitled to participate. Whatever one’s age, skin colour, sexual orientation or job, everyone should have the right to share in this incredible social phenomenon. The nature of the tribalism evoked whilst watching one’s side allows everyone in the stadium to stand as equals before the pitch. There is no legitimate reason why our society should not be fairer, and such egalitarianism can begin with football. Football provides a hugely cathartic emotional experience. Where else can tens of thousands of people share in each other’s unbridled joy or deepest despair? Football is an integral part of our heritage, and everyone deserves their opportunity to be part of it.
‘‘Football need not be the sanitised, commercialised preserve of the middle classes.’’ - Francis Scarr
THE GENERAL ELECTION 2015 Prediction Us Brits like our politics like we like our tea: not too strong, not too weak, simple and comforting. But just like a nice cup of tea that has been left too long, British politics has become lukewarm, unappealing, and quite frankly dull. Despite the injection of green, purple, yellow, red and blue into the political landscape, British politics is a distinct shade of beige. The Conservatives and Labour are now both skewed so close to the centre that it is almost impossible to recognize the founding ideologies in their contemporary policies. The prospect of dropping the prefix ‘centre’ from Ed Miliband’s left and David Cameron’s right terrifies the leaders to their very core. Parties that offer policies veering strongly to one side of the spectrum are few and far between. It is for this reason that parties such as the Greens, UKIP and the SNP have been welcomed with open arms by many. They are showing greater contempt for the age-old two-horse race, offering radical alternatives to the increasingly stale proposals of the Westminster elite.
This spark of change in Scotland is a trend which has been mirrored in the rest of the UK. The Green Party and UKIP have gained in popularity, securing places in the televised Leaders’ Debate emphasizing their current importance in politics. Just as the cold cup of British politics is close to being poured away, new more interesting flavours are being embraced; there has been a broadening of the British tastes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not simplifying the election down to comparisons of tea brands (though if I were, the Greens would be Twinings sweet fennel and lemon – something new and tangy, yet palatable – and UKIP would be PG Tips pure tea granules – never used in a serious cup of tea, there to be ignored and only deployed in extreme emergencies). What the Green Party offers is a progressive shake up; they are anti-austerity; they view immigration as a debate about human lives, not just economics; and they are the only party to place environmental concerns at the fore-front of their aims. These are proud left-leaning policies, and they do not try and mask them as people-pleasing, centrist proposals. Though different in everyway possible to the Greens, and undoubtedly offering an unfavourable alternative to current politics, UKIP has stuck to a radical programme of strict immigration laws and has made their aim for independence from the European Union clear from the offset; they too have not masked their policies in an attempt to please every voter. And this technique of passionate commitment to their clauses – for both the Greens and UKIP - has appealed to an increasing amount of voters.
A catalyst for differentiated party politics was undoubtedly the Independence referendum. Politics became exciting: you could not get a bus into town without spotting at least twenty ‘VoteYes’ campaign posters on the way. The subject was unavoidable. With a turnout of 85%, it seemed like people were becoming passionate about politics again. However, walking through the streets on September 19th, you couldn’t help but feel deflated; not so much at the result, but at the lack of buzz, at the knowledge that the next political event was not a choice between two exciting alternatives, but between a merge of bland parties, leaders and policies offering mild variations on the same safe solutions. Consequently, the Scots have fully embraced Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, propelling them to be the biggest party North of the border. Their popularity has grown to such an extent that they are now of pivotal importance in the outcome of the election. Scotland has turned its back on Labour, replacing them with a party who offers stronger socialist reform. Along with the Greens, the SNP are the only party to offer anti-austerity as a remedy to the decreased standard of living. With a predicted gain of 48 more seats in this coming election, it seems that they have hit the nail on the head with their solutions to socio-economic conditions. However, it must be remembered that the end goal of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP is Scottish independence. With Sturgeon’s recent slip of the tongue hinting at a possible 2016 independence referendum, will voters re-evaluate their alliance to the SNP, or will they maintain support for one of the only parties offering strong socially democratic views.
With the likelihood of a hung parliament, discourse is already underway about possible coalitions: UKIP-Tory? SNP-Labour? In the case of the former, I would pack my bags and buy a one-way ticket to Denmark. The likelihood of the latter is slim, with Miliband ruling out a possible SNP coalition. However, Labour could potentially be in a much stronger position if it broke free of its centrist shackles and accepted SNP support. After all, Nicola Sturgeon is passionate about getting as many MPs as possible in to Westminster, partly in order to “keep Labour honest”. Of course with a more radical approach to politics, we have to take the rough with the smooth; we have to take the UKIPs with the Greens, in the trust that reasonable, fair and effective policy will prevail. Yet, these are the steps we have to take to achieve real change in British politics; real change means different ideas; different parties; different people driving the alternatives. It is time to chuck that lukewarm cup of tea down the sink, and embrace a new piping hot mug of herbal infusions. The confidence of smaller parties in offering long-awaited alternatives could be just what is needed to revitalize British politics.
- Ellen McPherson
BRING US THE BODIES! “I’d like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that pornographers serve a purpose by showing that... Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can’t have.” - Bill Margold, porn industry veteran, 1993. Porn is everywhere in Western culture. In the past half a century it has become hugely accessibleavailable to anyone with an internet connectionin a vast range of genres and subthemes. 25% of all daily search engine requests are for porn (68 million searches per day) and 12% of sites on the internet are porn sites. Just like we learn cultural beauty standards by being inundated with images of the masculine and feminine ‘ideal’, we learn to normalise a particular sexual standard as ‘what sex should be.’ Mainstream porn shows sex which follows a specific set of patterns, and in doing so it normalises those patterns and creates expectations in people’s minds of how sex should be. The average age at which a boy watches porn for the first time is 11 years old- for a lot of people, porn provides a substantial sex ‘education,’ before they have had any sexual encounters of their own, and so can build up an image in their minds of what real-life sex should be like. This often leads to disappointment at best, and physical or mental harm at worst, when it comes to real sexual encounters.
Mainstream porn sells us an unrealistic and damaging standard of what our bodies should look like (e.g. complete hairlessness), but not only that- it teaches women that in order to have value, they have to be sexually attractive to men, while also teaching men what they should find sexually attractive. It promotes a certain body type, a certain way sexual encounters should be, certain stereotypes that men and women should fit into. A major stereotype which mainstream porn promotes is dominance and aggression in men, and passive subordination in women. A study of the top 50 rented porn movies found that 88% of scenes contained physical aggression, 94% of occurrences aimed at women. In 95.1% of those scenes, women were portrayed as responding to the violence with neutrality or pleasure. We can’t keep fantasy separate from reality- we all know that we can’t look like that Photoshopped model, but we still buy into the make-up industry, the fashion industry. If we can’t stop ourselves accepting one kind of message, why should we be able to keep the messages porn sends from seeping into our normal view of society?
‘None of the women are permitted to have what amounts to a personality. The one emotion they are allowed to display is an unquenchable desire to satisfy men, especially if that desire involves the women’s physical and emotional degradation.’ – Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle
‘Abuse springs from a man’s early cultural training, his key male role models, and his peer influences.’ -Lundy Bancroft “Pornography also eroticizes male supremacy. It makes dominance and subordination feel like sex; it makes hierarchy feel like sex; it makes force and violence feel like sex; it makes hate and terrorism feel like sex; it makes inequality feel like sex. Pornography keeps sexism sexy.” – John Stoltenberg, Refusing to be a Man: Essays on Social Justice Even though porn presents both a male and a female physical ideal, this is not the same as objectification. Women are made into sex objects by mainstream porn, while men remain the subjects acting on them. Mainstream porn shows very little in the way of intimacy- Ran Gavrieli calls porn ‘sex without hands,’ because porn is so fixated on penetration that men and women working in porn are instructed to keep their hands clear so the camera can get a good shot. Instead of intimacy, what we get in mainstream porn is aggression- women are barraged with slurs like ‘whore’ and ‘bitch’ and worse. The dehumanisation of women in porn seeps into our reality. Porn combines what women look like with what they are used for- it makes them into sex objects. If you dress a certain way, porn culture teaches us that you’re a slut, and you ‘had it coming.’ It reinforces the ideas propping up victim blaming and rape culture: it presents women as forever eager and willing to pleasure men, and then it teaches us to say ‘She clearly wanted it’ until we are blue in the face. Mainstream porn doesn’t just promote unrealistic standards for what people should look like, but unrealistic and harmful standards of what women should do for men in the name of sex. Women are encouraged by psychiatrists or sex therapists to make sure their male partners are fulfilled, even if they don’t want to try certain acts, or experience pain when doing so.
The self-help manual Being Orgasmic advises women to try anal sex if their male partner wants to, and tells them ‘If any discomfort does occur, try again some other time.’ The central message here is that a woman’s pain or discomfort is no reason not to make sure their man gets what he wants, but just a reason to train yourself, to try again and teach yourself to take it. After all, everyone’s doing it in porn. On the flipside, men report feeling inadequate in their intimate relationships and sexual experiences after viewing porn, and report difficulties in establishing close bonds, and disappointment with their partners. Porn doesn’t portray real sexual experiencesin the Porn World, foreplay is massively overlooked, and men and women are both turned on instantly by almost anything and are immediately ready for sex. The reality is that women are often not turned on as quickly as men- foreplay is pretty important, y’all. In mainstream, soft-core porn, women respond orgasmically to anything that a man does to them, and in particular are portrayed as always orgasming through penetration. In actual fact, only 30% of women are physically able to orgasm that way. In most cases, women can only orgasm through clitoral stimulation, but mainstream porn shows us women orgasming all over the place, despite nothing going on near their clit.
So, is it any wonder that both men and women are then disappointed when their actual sexual encounters fail to meet the unreachable standard that porn normalises? And is it any wonder that we’re still fighting gender inequality and gender stereotypes when porn sexualises and normalises those exact stereotypes? The message to take away: porn sex is not real life sex. We need to be talking about sex more- about real life sex- so people aren’t forced to get their sex-ed from a medium which feeds them lies. - Teresa Baron