That's What She Said #8 by That's What She Said

thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s what

she said

Contributors Rachel May

Lucy Stewart

Rachel is an editor of That’s What She Said, and studies History of Art and French. She is still searching for the perfect Stephen Malkmus lyric for this bio.

Lucy Stewart is an editor of That’s What She Said, and a second year English student, currently studying abroad in LA. Having finally accepted American spelling alternatives, there is now no expected return.

Frankie Roe

Clara Vlessing

Clara is a second year English student, who can currently be found studying in Paris. She is an editor of this magazine, and her passion for Helvetica Neue Ultra Light knows no bounds. Alice Owens Alice is a second year biochemist with an interest on the media’s depiction of women. Read more on page 12.

Sarah Brodie

Raphael Fisher

Ajit Niranjan

Having written for the Guardian and the New Statesman, Ajit is of course most proud of his work in That’s What She Said, and on Twitter @ NiranjanAjit. Read his piece on the Default Male on page 4.

Frankie is studying for a PhD in marionettes in German literature and art, and, astoundingly, is able to do the dialogue for the Tintin animated episodes more or less word for word.Read her piece on the intersection of feminism and class with reference to Dapper Laughs on page 6.

Raphael is supposedly a third year economist, but all evidence points to him being a disciple of Rocotillo’s. Read his article on #actuallyethics and Gamergate on page 16.

Harry Pearson

Maya Jones

Ella Wills

Ella, a serious English student, is often in need of a burger. Read her piece on pubic Tamara Prenn hair on page 8. Tamara is an editor of this magazine, and a second-year English student who considers ‘sexy witch‘ not just a Halloween costume, but a lifestyle choice. She has contributed collages and has written a paen to Sylvia Plath and One Direction on page 10.

Second year historian. Feminist, left handed, left wing, Jewish, vegetarian, generally abnormal.Read her piece on worldwide access to contraception on page 14.

Harry Pearson is a second year History student. Splitting his time between Bristol and Tunbridge Wells, he enjoys watching Channel 4 comedies on repeat and looking for examples of Great Art by Banksy in Stokes Croft. Read his piece on South Asian feminism on page 17.

Maya is a first year English student and believes cheese should be fundamental to every meal, even breakfast. Read her commentary on sexism in Welcome Week on page 18. Chloe Maughan Chloë is campaigns officer for Bristol Feminists and is studying law with the view to working in ending violence against women. Chloë organises FemEd coffee mornings, and is certain there are subtle differences in brownies across different Boston Tea Party branches. Read about the upcoming campaign on page 20.

Defining the Default Male

Content Warning: Man writing about feminism without mentioning women

It’s time we talked about men. Not all of them, obviously. Not normal men, or average men, or even typical men – because as the statistics show, this mysterious and rarely-scrutinised demographic of humankind is anything but normal. The men we really need to talk about, to simply look at, even, are a minority here in the UK – and far more so in the rest of the world. They’re a small section of society united in their language and institutions, their cultural habits and attitudes, and who count for just 10% of the British population. They are also the most powerful people in the world. Who are they? Who is He? This cultural group has been so successful at masquerading as the norm that even putting a name on Him is nearly impossible. But we can define a couple of His features. Male, for a start. White, almost exclusively. Straight. Middle-class and middle-aged. The list could go on. He’s the person we picture when we hear the words ‘surgeon’ or ‘lawyer’ or ‘banker’, and He’s the person we employ when we need to find a new surgeon or lawyer or banker. He is our subconscious definition of status and power, a figure so omnipresent in centuries of Western society – from governance and politics to art and literature – that he has become nearly synonymous with God.

about the rise and fall of “Default Men” and the power they’ve inexplicably assumed. “The Great White Male” is another fairly accurate descriptor. Berkeley professor Michael Mark Cohen takes a different tack and focusses on defining the members of this group who choose to abuse the privileges that come with being rich, white and male – he opts for the term ‘douchebag’. As Cohen claims “it’s a quite literally useless, sexist tool.” But let’s look at the whole group – the whole community of them, not just the bad eggs – and go with ‘Model Male’, as all over the world these few anonymous men are held up as role models to aspire to; men who organised religion claims have been created in the image of perfection. They are the standard from which all ‘others’ are deviating, whether they’re women, pensioners, ethnic minorities or identify as LGBTQ.

‘His statue stands in the central square of every major European city’

Model Man is the classical, timeless, faceless figure whose accomplishments and ideas have transcended geographical boundaries and spread like wildfire across the globe. His statue stands in the central square of every major European city and his drab, 19th century uniform – the ‘He is our subconscious definition of British Empire’s most successful export, the suit – is now the intrinsic definition of success. Govstatus and power’ ernment officials from Bombay to the Bahamas make their daily commute dressed as if the local Turn on the news and nearly every ‘individual’ weather were the never-ending Bristol drizzle. worthy of being named is one of these men. Of course, there are plenty of other groups As individuals, Model Men have made huge confeatured in the media – ethnic minorities and tributions to society – given how few of them there people who identify as LGBTQ – but always, al- are, they’re punching far above their weight. But ways with a prefix subtly binding them to their within this lies a problem that we’ve been highly ‘community’. The ‘woman doctor’ or the ‘Mus- reluctant to acknowledge. Because as a group, lim professor’. The default position of success Model Men have claimed far more space than is invariably white, male, rich and straight; they’re entitled to. From politics to the media, if someone strays from this description then rich, white men are grossly overrepresented in it’s the first thing of which we’re made aware. every possible field. The level to which this holds true is mind-boggling. For all the cries about “levWhat to call Him? Grayson Perry, a transvestite el playing fields” and “shattering the glass ceilpotter from Essex, writes in the New Statesman ing”, we still live in a country where only 5% of

FTSE 100 CEOs are women. Drop down to the next rung and we see that female representation in the entire boardroom sits at a meagre 16%. But even those shocking numbers mask deeper issues. When the upper echelons of power are so grossly dominated by Model Men, not everyone needs to perfectly match the full criteria. It’s why a couple of members of these other communities – ethnic minority, women, LGBTQ – can always slip through the net and become part of the establishment; so long as, in all other respects, they match the definition of normal. It’s a certain type of ‘other’ who’s permitted to enter the hallowed halls of Model Male power – the heavily sanitised, Barack Obama or Maggie Thatcher type of ‘other’. Look at the US, where more than half of the male CEOs are overweight. Unsurprising, perhaps, but this figure drops to just ten percent for female CEOs. For the few woman clinging on to the corporate ladder, the heavy burden of the Model Male gaze threatens to knock them off.

‘The power of rich, straight, white men permeates every sphere of public influence far more than it should’ Outside the realms of corporate fat cats, unfortunately, the swollen status of Model Man doesn’t decrease. He makes up the majority of senior police officers, judges, major newspaper editors and Cabinet ministers. It’s the same story whether you look at politics, media or finance. The power of rich, straight, white men permeates every sphere of public influence far more than it should.

‘privilege should not be conflated with sin’ If you’ve been reading this and thinking you tick most of the boxes of this demographic, it’s probably a good time to say that no-one’s suggesting this is a bad thing – though I hope that Bristol’s admissions office is aware that a staggering 40% of students come from independent schools. But privilege should not be conflated with sin. You didn’t ask to be chosen over an equally suitable ‘other’ when applying for a job or trying to rent a room, and you also weren’t the employer or landlord responsible for that discrimination. No-one is asking you or I to feel

guilty about the fact that discrimination exists – but we should recognise that it is happening, and that it is happening right on our doorstep. Bristol itself has now been the subject of two BBC experiments in the last few years highlighting the day-to-day discrimination that Muslims and Asians trying to live and work in the city face. For women and other oppressed groups, the bigotry experienced can often be far worse. To give a bit of context to the percentages, it’s also worth mentioning just how unrepresentative Model Men are. It’s a question of proportionality. The United Kingdom is 87% white but within Parliament this rises to 96% – a small difference if you’re on the sitting on the right side of the table, but for ethnic minority groups it represents large-scale disenfranchisement: there would have to be three times as many BME Members of Parliament and twice as many women to make the government begin to reflect the population. It’s no better when looking at class. Just seven percent of British children are privately educated – but they grow up to dominate a third of the House of Commons and half of the House of Lords. The recent report by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission claimed that elitism is so inherent in British society that it could be described as “social engineering”.

‘thick, nauseating layers of decadent privilege’ This level of dissonance couldn’t be more apparent than in the upcoming general election. Our four most likely choices of prime minister in 2015 are all very rich, male, middle-aged, straight and white men, who will undoubtedly bring in Cabinets composed mostly of other men who fit the same bill. The Green Party leader Natalie Bennett could have been seen as a counter to these rigid, almost comically stereotypical Model Men, but not a single broadcaster invited her to the pre-election debates – despite the Greens having as many Members of Parliament as UKIP and polling far more favourably than the Liberal Democrats. Why wasn’t the Green Party included? Looking at how other countries run these debates, with panel-style discussions representing a broad range of views, there’s not really a credible answer that

doesn’t reek of a secretive, behind-the-scenes decision of a Model Male committee. Though they’ll hardly admit it, diversity in media is even more out of touch with this country than politics is. And the presenters of all these discussions – the ones framing the debate of what is and isn’t important for the public to know – are no different to the politicians fighting it out. Model Men ask other model men how to govern the country and we’re expected to swallow the lie that they represent our views. The worst thing is, we could add a whole slew of other qualifiers to identify the make-up of a Model Male – for instance, able-bodied, cis-gendered, privately-educated, Oxbridge, Home Counties – and the size of the sample under the microscope would shrink drastically. We’re talking about at a tiny, tiny fraction of the country. But look back at those in power, and we find that adding extra filters of privilege hasn’t really changed anything – power is still concentrated exclusively in the hands of these Model Men. From Eton to Oxbridge, the old boys’ network is endemic in the UK.

thick, nauseating layers of decadent privilege. The bland and disproportionate homogeny of our elite means that they – politicians, journalists and corporations – simply lack the ability to empathise with, say, a single mother trying to escape an abusive partner or avoid eviction from an exploitative landlord. (Consider now that a third of MPs are buy-to-let landlords, and however many chose to claim expenses for second homes they didn’t even live in, and you begin to see a pattern.) Model Men, as a group, do not have the collective understanding to begin solving these issues, but are invariably the ones with the power to do so.

It’s time we talked about men. The Model Men in charge of this country don’t represent us in their appearance and they certainly don’t represent us in their aims. They have deceived the public that true equality exists in the United Kingdom today, even as they continue to swamp every position of influence and authority. Change is happening too slowly. We need But once again – it’s not the gender, the skin col- to end this minority community’s total strangleour, the sexuality or the social background of hold on power – and we need to end it now. these men that underpins their incompetence at solving the social issues crippling this country. - Ajit Niranjan It’s just that as a group, their views on so many topics the public cares about are ill-informed by

Daniel O’Reilly

AN INTERSECTION CLASS AND FEMINISM

Although Daniel O’Reilly’s recent decision to retire the ‘comic’ character, Dapper Laughs, has met with understandable relief from many, the announcement has not been without its opponents. Alongside the usual accusations of left-wing intolerance against ‘different’ (i.e rabidly misogynistic) worldviews, a more specific form of criticism has emerged: the opposition to O’ Reilly, and to cat-calling more generally, reflects a demonisation of working-class masculinity by a liberal, middle-class feminist elite. Issues of class and race certainly cannot be divorced from discussions of cat-calling, as evidenced by the

debate around the recent Hollaback! video filmed in New York in which white, middle-class cat-callers were edited from the final film. However, to suggest that O’Reilly’s videos should be accepted as part of an ‘authentically’ working-class culture in the U.K. is at best misguided and patronising, and at worst indicates a willingness to overlook the harassment faced by women in order to lash out against a perceived liberal hegemony. There is simple justification for the opposition to both Dapper Laughs and street harassment more generally: women should be able to go about their daily lives uninterrupted by such behaviours, and to defend O’Reilly’s behaviour as an ‘authentic’ manifestation of working-class humour is problematic on a number of counts. Not only does it advance a homogeneous and simplistic view of working-class men, but it also prioritises the right to express an allegedly ‘authentic’ working-class misogyny over the right of

women (working-class or otherwise) to feel safe and valued in society at large. O’Reilly may not enjoy the class privilege of some of the women who oppose his comedy: however, his videos reveal a willingness to exert his male privilege in a way that is profoundly harmful, and it does not constitute an oppressive act to firmly oppose his brand of misogyny. The claim that O’Reilly’s videos are representative of working-class attitudes is, thankfully, contested. The comedian Lee Kern dismissed this argument as patronising and inaccurate in his open letter to ITV, emphasising that ‘disdain for Dapper Laughs is not an act of class snobbery. It is an act of ideology’. Such humour, he states, is opposed by many working-class men and women, and was not a feature of his own working-class upbringing. This most obvious objection aside, the assertion that the backlash against O’Reilly is nothing but a feminist demonisation of working-class men ignores the fact that middle-class misogyny is hardly immune from feminist criticism. The last few years have seen an increased focus on rape culture on campus, and a cursory glance over the most recent internet scandals brings up the criticism of Dr. Matt Taylor’s unfortunate choice of shirt in a television interview, reflecting the extent to which figures operating within the most traditionally middle-class, elite academic contexts are not exempt from feminist criticism. Although it hardly needs to be stated that misogynists can be found across all social classes, it is true that words and terms can acquire different meanings across class and region, and a middle-class, feminist world-view can lead to misinterpretation. I remember a friend telling me that his middle-class boss from London tried to persuade male workers at Leeds City Council not to use the term ‘love’: having grown up in a mainly working-class area of the city, I had to smile. Recent debates around cat-calling have presented less clear-cut questions regarding the intersections of race, class and misogyny: Nichi Hodgson recently argued that the cat-calls of men from disadvantaged backgrounds reflect their lack of any real agency or power, an attempt to assert male privilege as compensation for their lack of privilege in other areas, and in the wake of the Hollaback! New York video, concerns have been voiced as to the possible impact of the criminalisation of cat-calling on men from minority ethnic groups who, it is claimed, are

more likely to be offenders. Whilst such issues deserve discussion, O’Reilly’s misogyny cannot be excused as a simple regional or class difference. Even if O’Reilly lacks the class privilege of the women he heckles, this does not discount his male privilege and its negative impact upon women - and it strikes me as unlikely that the phrase ‘gagging for a rape’ differs vastly in interpretation across the class divide. Even if we were to consider O’Reilly’s particular brand of misogyny as inherently working-class, such behaviour would remain fundamentally unjustifiable. The harm done to women is more than enough to justify the backlash against such forms of misogyny, and whilst issues of class, race and cat-calling need to be discussed within feminist spheres, opposition to O’Reilly’s comments can be more than justified on a simple ideological basis. The opposition to O’Reilly, cat-calling and street harassment, and new attempts to prevent the ‘pick-upartist’ and all-round misogynist Julien Blanc from visiting the U.K., have inevitably led to increased debate surrounding the limits of free speech and the extent to which a criticism of crude, sexist humour constitutes an attack on working-class culture. The representation of a homogeneous, masculine and misogynistic working-class culture has been challenged by a number of working-class men, and those who defend O’Reilly as a ‘working-class voice’ often appear to be motivated less from a genuine desire to engage with working-class concerns, and more from a conservative desire to lash out at a perceived ‘liberal elite’ and a feminist movement that is seen to have overstepped the mark. Although feminist groups need to remain open to the discussion of the ways in which cat-callers can themselves be members of disadvantaged groups, this does not negate the very real impact of misogynistic humour and street harassment on women. To defend O’Reilly on class grounds prioritises the right of men, working class or otherwise, to indulge in misogyny and the normalisation of rape over the right of women of all backgrounds to feel safe and respected in society. - Francesca Roe

Pubic Image Ltd.

They’re your pubes, embrace your pubey pals.

Backtrack a few of my teenage years and pubic hair was the elephant in the room; what was everyone doing with their bush? Mine seemed perfectly nice and curly but I was riddled with anxiety over how I should approach the area. Boys, I was told, were rather opinionated when it came to the muff.

desire to cover it with a tea cosy for fear that it might catch cold. Definitely mixed reviews. And then, overnight, the smooth smooth downstairs turned into a horrific site of pain and discomfort. My body very much disagreed with shaving. It responded by gifting me with a host of angry red spots, ingrown hairs and a rather uncomfortable itch. Let me tell you, a constant urge to scratch your crotch in public is not going to increase your rep at school.

It was time for some casual research. I therefore turned to chick flicks to provide some visuals. Let me direct you to a scene in the film ‘It’s a Boy/Girl Thing’ where said ‘Girl’ is subjected to a vaginal makeover on a girl’s night in. Or maybe to Bridget Jones’s pre-Daniel Cleaver waxing sesh. Both these ladies find the experience less than enjoyable, but for them maintenance is a must.

So shaving was a no. I moved onto hair removal cream and waxing. Hair removal cream... Goodbye pain we cheer! Yet only if you properly remove the removal cream it seems, as I learnt the hard way. A rather hurried scramble to get ready one night meant some residue remained. This quickly developed into an acid burning. Forgive me for not wanting to go back to the evil chemical (it smells like that for a reason!).

Further advice was found in the common room – girls skiving PSHE to read Cosmopolitan and eat pot noodles are a plethora of knowledge. Here it seemed that everyone was more ‘in the know’ than I. One girl boasted conducting a survey with her MSN boyfriends as to their thoughts on the ol’ pubes. Words like Brazilian, Hollywood and landing strip were thrown around by the more ‘experienced’ ones. My question - what was this landing strip? Did a penis really need a hair shaped runway to the vagina? Did I perhaps need a landing strip to guide me to my private parts?

As for waxing, only attempt this yourself if you have the guts to rip the strip. An old friend of mine was known to spend an entire week hiding a wax strip in her knickers because she could endure the pain no longer. It’s just asking for a sticky mess.

Eventually, mounting peer pressure and that bizarre Venus topiary advert resulted in the beginnings of my forays into grooming. I took to the razor. First impressions – my squeaky clean, shiny vagina looked like it had skipped puberty. I also had a strong

sex. It’s just not really what comes up when you are getting down… I’m certainly not going to stop to inspect his pube situation, bit of a mood kill possibly? On a more serious, health and hygienic note, there’s a reason we’ve got hair down there. In all the pressure of the pubic image, the actual purpose of the hair itself can be overlooked. Your vagina is a very sensitive area and it needs a little love and affection. Why not think of your luscious locks as a warming hug that is keeping out lots of bacteria and infection. Yes, you might think it looks cleaner when there is nothing there.... but your vagina thinks otherwise. That society’s preoccupation with the way we look has undermined this basic bodily function is really rather worrying. Insecurity is the driving force behind our obsession with pubes. We’ve all got body hang-ups to begin with, and getting to grips with baring them is hurdle enough. That we have to expose the pubes as well is perhaps one worry too many. Best course of action? Do what works for you. Feeling like you want to let it grow? Let it go wild (I challenge myself to growing competitions once in a while). Feeling like a trim? Neaten that puppy up. Fancy a landing strip? Yeah sure, though I still don’t understand what that means… As long as you don’t reduce yourself to hopping round your room in an itchy frenzy because your boyfriend said he likes you shaved, you’re doing fine. - Ella Wills

But why all of this effort? In my view all I got from this grooming was pain, and patches of skin that just looked unappealing. Girls were ravaging their pubes, driven by a fear that they’d be laughed out of bed for going au natural. And yet, I can’t say I’ve ever had a boy say no because he doesn’t like the state of my fanny. I’ve also never heard of any friend’s hair-care commented on during

‘CAN A SELFISH EGOCENTRIC JEALOUS AND UNIMAGINATIVE FEMALE WRITE A DAMN THING WORTHWHILE?’

- A remark taken from the journals of Sylvia Plath

I have never had a problem understanding men, due to the overwhelming personal information I have on them. Over the years my literary knowledge has been saturated with the actions of men, the insights of men; men who make fortunes, lose lovers, shift status; all written by men, but for man. I have studied these books, I have enjoyed these books, I have idled lifetimes away as these characters, and it never occurred to me, female, that I couldn’t be anyone of them. This is something that we can treasure, as women. Because I understand that we are the only sex that has this tranformatory power within our creative consciousness. To falsify naivety for the purpose of the article, I will say this is something I have only noticed recently, but sadly the gradual idea has been blooming for longer than that, and at a rate at which I inversely wilt, as knowledge passes on an understanding of the more nuanced flaws of humanity. A favourite of mine, Sylvia Plath, to me typifies this belief, as a recent seminar on The Bell Jar highlighted the unbelievability of links between the experience of the ‘average’ male reader versus the story of a young woman’s human awakening and eventual spiral into mental illness within the confines of a repressive anti-woman society in post-war America. Because without the parameters of ‘young woman’, ‘repressive anti-woman society’ and ‘post-war America’, it seems as if the story, and the emotional content within the pages, ceases to exist for many readers.

also yes. Often, understanding of moments in novels can only be enhanced by personal connection. It would be wrong to say all pleasure I have grasped from The Bell Jar was devoid of considerations for her womanhood, her youthful exploration of varying horrors and banalities, that for the first part of the novel, come in equal measure, gnarled up with each other in the bleakness of a solitary human experience. But when an emotion is stripped back, heartbreak, sorrow, joy – it has the power to be universally recognisable, regardless of setting and situation. This is why readers can be equally moved by Russian counts and American drifters, with no loss of understanding of the dual worlds they inhabit. In the subsequent years after her death, Plath has come to represent many different generalisations for a range of people searching for meaning in her short life. Consummate arsehole Woody Allen however, manages to succinctly mock and perpetuate the prevailing stereotype with all the quippy bile that one can glean from a quick search in any men’s rights forums in Annie Hall, enduringly one of my other reluctant favourites, as he states ‘Oh, Sylvia Plath, whose tragic suicide was misinterpreted as romantic by the college girl mentality’, subtly reducing her to the three most derivatives cornerstones of a misogynist’s approximation of Plath’s work and those who love it.

What Allen terms romanticism could perhaps be an all too inaccurate synonym for sympaWhilst feeling can be set in a world free from bi- thy, heaven forbid that the emotion gained from nary gender ties, when a connection is formed reading Plath’s work not be sentimentalised out to particular characters, or singular perfect of existence, or that girls could create a sensamoments in literature, can these emotional con- tion of feeling without verging on melodrama. nections really be free of the experience of the The ‘college girl’ mentality that he talks about reader themselves, whose opinions have been comes with its own undercurrent of something shaped by every second on their earth and the intangible to be feared, due to its lack of underactions that have swirled around them in their standing, and power to spread itself amongst an human metamorphosis? I like to think no, and impressionable pack. Its power that is inherent

in the simple act of aging, when ‘college girls’ to be derided become women to whom men will have to listen. This fear is evident in how typically female narratives are sidelined as exclusively feminine opinions and viewpoints. The cultural experience smeared with the sticky fingers of inherent misogyny as the phantom behemoth of ‘good taste’ is engineered into a soul suffocating benchmark to which all women must adhere in order to be seen as human rather than ‘female’, with our ‘female’ tastes and ‘female’ sensibilities. Male taste is taste, it is the assumed default, and that is why I can sympathise with Philip Roth as you tell me about the Plath’s own hysteria and how it clouds her artistic lens. The idea of female tastes and the patriarchal organisation of structured interests is a battle that is fought most poignantly at teenhood, with society quick to demonize mainstream cultural pleasures as personality shaping and definitive of a problematic generation. Just as Beatlemania shocked society into fear of permissive 1960s teens and typified them as obsessive and unwilling to commit to adult behaviour, we have, among others, One Direction. Whom I love. When I mention that I’m into One Direction, seriously into the album and dangerously close to writing sticker-smattered fanmail, care of Syco, my male friends are the first to jump down my throat to tell me how it is shocking to them that they can now identify me with the hysterical, sweating preteens that have become a reknownedly mindless emblem of the fanbase. A recent convert, seduced admittedly by Harry’s penchant for Saint Laurent Paris (which could

pretentiously knock down several points of the debate with regards to generalizations, but reassuredly the rest of them still dress like those male nuggets who take your number in clubs and never ever text you back), I’m much more entranced by the honesty that comes with that micro-managed, love-by-numbers boyband joy. Pleasure for pleasure’s sake, which comes with a plethora of the denigration that frequently joins any enjoyment, and pleasure that would happily define me, and align me with all other girls. At their peril. The fans they talk about aren’t even those fans, and if they are, surely passion is something to be celebrated? Cherished, in a time where a lack of adult responsibility can nurture a love for something harmless, something that is unable to wholly define a person. In ‘Kids Won’t Listen’, an article written for Rookie Mag, Hazel Cills pertinently observes that ‘when you applaud or critique a young girl’s taste based on how well or badly it aligns with yours, you are suggesting that your taste = THE RIGHT TASTE’, and this is exactly the sort of harmful homogeonization that patriarchial society is wont to inflict. Feminism is about the protection of women as much as anything else; if we can look at ourselves and read the scars left by criticism, the subtle arrows that pierce the female self in our everyday acceptance of misogyny and the delicate destruction that is commonplace within even a liberal patriarchy, then we should be doing everything in our power to bestow the confidence in one’s own opinions onto the next generation.

Feminism in the Media Nobody can deny that there has been somewhat of a feminist explosion in the media over the past couple of years. It’s never had so much coverage. It’s like Miley Cyrus in many ways (bear with me). Not that long ago, she was just an annoying concept that people knew was there but didn’t really feel the need to discuss. Fast forward a few years and suddenly feminism has grown up and become interesting. It’s risen up out of nowhere, licking a hammer and writhing against Robin Thicke, making it a media a sensation. Well, not quite, but you get the idea. Not so long ago, few people would even utter the ‘f-word’ for fear of its negative connotations, but now people can’t shut up about it, myself included. It’s people in the public eye, like Miley herself who have got the (wrecking) ball rolling (sorry, I’ll stop now) for feminism by making it a point of discussion. Since celebrities have started coming out as feminists one by one, it’s become ‘cool’ to be interested in gender equality. Feminism has essentially become a trend. Just how helpful is this though? And more importantly, how long will it last? Because, after all every trend has an expiry date. Much like how I like to begin every discussion, I’d like to open up with Beyoncé. For she is the current queen of feminism, the beacon of female empowerment, and the lady blazing a trail for women’s rights. Right? Now, don’t get me wrong, I am as much of a fan of her music as the next person. Let’s face it, it’s almost sacrilege not to be, but I can’t help admit to being just a little bit suspicious of her recent behaviour. Her self-titled album, released late last year focused a lot on the topic of feminism; the original version of ‘Flawless’ in particular contains what I believe to be a spot-on definition of feminism. She has brought that theme over to her current tour. There is an extremely powerful gif constantly

cropping up on my tumblr dashboard of her stood majestically, with her hands on her hips and her hair blowing meticulously around her face, the word ‘feminist’ lit up on the stage behind her in pink. It is quite the spectacle, but I wonder whether it is more for show than it is to make a statement. Beyoncé has built a career not only on her incredible voice, but also her image. This is of course a vital ingredient in the recipe to make a perfect popstar. And with each new album comes a new image. Could it be that the character of a feminist is just one she is portraying for her current promotional cycle that will be forgotten about by the time she releases her next record? Beyoncé has always been seen as a strong, independent woman, and she has used that stance lately to bring a lot of attention to feminism. However, as far as I know she has actually said very little about it in person, meaning her genuine passion for change is questionable. Although I think that just like her ‘alter ego’ Sasha Fierce, feminist Beyoncé could just be another yet marketing ploy, she is still providing feminism with a remarkable platform nonetheless. The recent influx of stolen nude photos cropping up on the Internet, primarily featuring female celebrities has shown there is still some way for feminism to go though. Women have been the main targets of course, due to society’s obsessive sexualisation of the female form. But what I have found most distressing about this whole debacle has been the overwhelming amount of victim blaming from the general public. I have seen statements along the lines of ‘if they didn’t want them leaked, they should never have taken them in the first place’ plastered across social media in alarming numbers. This is of course absolutely ludicrous, and bravo to Jennifer Lawrence for speaking out about this. Her response was an admirable one. She was insistent that she had done nothing wrong, and refused to apologise.

And why should she? She explained that she was reluctant to comment, understandably, but felt like she must so that people didn’t think what had happened was right. It is sad that her response was so necessary, but I hope that by calling out those men and women ignorant enough to believe the victims of the hackings were the ones at fault, Lawrence has given them a well-needed reality check, and received a flood of support from fellow media figures as a result. Tabloids have always had a terrible habit of pitting famous women up against each other, and like everything in popular culture this has transpired into the general public, thus conditioning young girls into thinking they must be in constant competition with their female counterparts. However, for all its flaws, the current wave of feminism in the media has seen a globally recognised camaraderie amongst female celebrities, which even the worst of the redtops haven’t been able to put a negative spin on. It is refreshing to see the famous women of the world all grouping together for a common cause, and I wonder if this has resulted in less cattiness amongst women in general at all. We shouldn’t hate each other of course; and I hope this has become apparent to more impressionable young girls who have previously been led to believe that it is not ok to have the same level of respect for those of the same gender as they do for the men in their lives. The problem with feminism being so fashionable at the moment though is that it is hard to tell those who genuinely care about the cause apart from those who are merely just trying to remain appealing. For example, Taylor Swift adamantly stated in an interview for The Daily Beast in 2012 that she was not a feminist, yet recently she claimed the opposite. It could be true that now she understands what it is to be a feminist and therefore realises herself to be one, which she accredits to her new found friendship with bonafide feminist Lena Dunham. But my guess is that she has just changed her tune in order to follow the rest of the crowd and keep herself looking relevant, regardless of her actual beliefs. Nevertheless, ‘any press is good press’ is a saying that comes to mind when considering the overall effect of feminism in the media. So, is even bad feminism still good feminism? Well, yes it is, and I’ll tell you why. Whether genuine of not, the celebrity

icons raising gender equality as an issue are still bringing feminism the exposure that it deserves. As the photo hacking scandal has proved, feminism is very much still needed, and so it is good that everyone is starting to sit up and take notice, often due to its mentions in the media. I think it is important to recognise here that those who are famous have the capability to reach so many. Whether that means setting a new hairstyle such as ‘the pob’ as a trend, or introducing a whole new ideal such as feminism to an audience who were previously unaware, either way it is still a powerful tool. And it is this influence that has undoubtedly brought about a wave of newly proclaimed feminists into our society, some of whom at least, are aspiring to cause change. Of course, the life span as feminism as a fashionable topic is limited. Who knows how long it will be so prominent, but for now it is here to stay. And whilst it is getting so much attention, it is reaching a much wider audience, which surely can only be a good thing. Celebrities have the power to influence people en masse, and by talking about feminism, they are in turn getting others to talk about it. This domino effect is making more and more of us start taking note of everyday sexism and start believing it is unacceptable and needs to be challenged. Although those bringing the matter in question to light may not always have the best of intentions at heart, those being influenced could however be more likely to make a difference as a result. Let’s not forget that although this media fixation on feminism is most likely temporary, the resulting effects have the potential to be permanent, and quite frankly spectacular. - Alice Owens

CONTRACEPTION IS A FEMINIST ISSUE

Female Contraception has been at the heart of the feminist movement for decades; approved for the first time by the American Food and Drugs administration in the early 1960s, it proved to be so influential over the course of the decade that Time Magazine put it on its cover in April, 1967. Its enormous impact rippled through the next generation; as more women graduated from college and had successful careers, they were able to put off marriage and children without sacrificing sexual relationships (Loretta Lynn’s song ‘The Pill’ is a fantastic reflection of this). The UK made the pill available on the NHS in the 60s, at first restricted to only married women. Today, British women are incredibly lucky to have a wide range of contraception available to them, with many brands of oral contraceptive as well as the possibility to have longer term options such as the implant and the coil fitted. Abortion is also legal and widely available, with 180,000 abortions performed each year (10,000 of these women originating from outside the UK) according to the NHS’s website. Maybe lucky is the wrong word - we deserve this right, and authority over our own body and reproduction, which many women do not enjoy. A woman’s right over her own body in this context varies wildly around the world. The pill Is legal nearly everywhere, but often difficult to access. A new study, funded by the UN population division, found that 223 million women of reproductive age worldwide do not have access to contraception, with women in developing countries accounting for 80% of this need. The UN decreed contraception a universal human right in 2012, declaring

in a report that ‘Family Planning is a universal right. It must be available to all that want it’. Yet women in many regions in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia face barriers to contraception including erratic availability and cost. Even if there are no legal restrictions, health workers often do not believe it is appropriate to provide young, unmarried women with long term contraceptives such as IUDs (the coil) and oral contraceptives, due to disapproval of premarital sex or believing the contraceptives ‘inappropriate’. Furthermore, even where contraception is available, social conventions can play a part in barring them from women who need them. A study by the Guardian into adolescent women in developing countries discovered how young women under pressure to bear children in marriage cannot freely use contraception. Conversely, sexually active single women who are aware of the stigma surrounding contraception, and are afraid of being labelled ‘loose’ also are restricted. Work must be done to challenge preconceptions about contraception in these countries to afford women their reproductive rights. Adolescent fertility is declining worldwide, but still high in many developing countries, due to ‘inter-related factors of early childbearing, high infant mortality, low education and contraceptive use, and persistence of high fertility-sustaining social customs’. The issue is not as cut and dry as you may assume - Spain is amongst the countries to prohibit the IUD, due to religious opposition allowing the egg to be fertilised, and subsidies for condoms are available in Niger, Angola and

Nepal but not in Norway, Belgium or Germany. But it cannot be ignored that in particularly much of Africa and South Asia, access to contraception is drastically restricted compared to the UK. The USA is ranked by the IMF as one of the world’s most developed countries, yet is going backwards in its contraceptive rights. It has recently allowed a loophole so companies’ health insurance for their employees does not have to include their contraception. This loophole was instigated by two big companies, Hobby Lobby and Connestega Wood, who object to providing contraception as the prevention of the fertilisation of an embryo is ‘outside the beliefs of the companies founders’. Contraception without insurance costs over $100 for a month’s prescription. This is part of what is arguably a wave of religious backlash against reproduction rights in the USA. Texas is amongst the worst culprits, closing a number of abortion clinics this year leaving Rio Grande Valley, a socio-economically deprived area with 1.3m inhabitants, 240 miles from their nearest clinic, as reported by the Guardian. Meanwhile, a bill in the same state allocates $4m to promoting alternatives to abortion while restricting funds for family planning groups. In one of the world’s most developed countries, reproductive freedom is being retracted, robbing women of the rights that contraception and abortion entails- the right not to be controlled by your fertility and body, to be able to achieve your potential outside a family while still enjoying a sex life.

I personally constantly find myself bogged down on the ins and outs of internet feminism, with furor over Emma Watson proclaiming #heforshe on a ‘slimming white dress’ and Renee Zellweger’s face. Too much of the fight is limited to a small, elite sphere who debate on issues specifically relevant only to them. Feminism should be for everyone, and a central fight should be for women all around the world, not just our own sphere, to achieve their full potential. I don’t wish to belittle the feminist issues that are high profile in Britain - so much still needs to be done before we achieve full equality. But we only have the time and energy to debate the many frankly outrageous inequalities in our own society because we are able to enjoy sexual relationships without fear of unwanted pregnancy we cannot possibly prevent. I complain about having to go to the doctor every six months for a new (free) pill prescription, five minutes from my house, while hundreds of millions of women do not have access to the contraception they need. In the UK and worldwide, all women should have the opportunities they deserve, rather than to be trapped with a domestic situation they’re not ready for. I think the knock on effect on this would be a better situation for women everywhere- once equipped with the means to prevent unwanted children, how many women in less developed countries would work in education, activism, improving the situations of other women and making feminism the inclusive, worldwide movement it should be? More privileged feminists in Bristol and beyond need to be aware of the issues worldwide, so we can all fight together for the reproductive rights we should stumble upon by lucky accident of birth, but be entitled to. - Sarah Brodie

Women’s Care Global is an excellent charity improving access to contraception worldwide. For more information or if you’re interested in getting involved, see their website below: http://www.womancareglobal.org/

“

actually it’s about ethics in video game journalism

In yet another stunning example of “the video games community needs to sort its sh*t out”, Gamergate became one of the biggest controversies of Summer 2014. Having started after the ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn, the developer of Depression Quest, wrote a blog post accusing her of having cheated on him with a journalist for a major games news site, it spiralled into a series of harassment disguised as an ethical inquiry into conflicts of interest. Gamers already have many reasons to despair over the state of video games journalism – developers and journalists already tend to have a worryingly cosy relationship, with subtle bribes and payolas thrown around (from free games to ad revenue dependence) – but the community itself has rarely responded over the years with anything more than a harsh grumble. Up until suddenly, the ‘villain’ of this story isn’t yet another guy who’s part of yet another relatively faceless company – it’s a woman with an interest in making games that go beyond entertainment and enter the world of mental health issues and other socially-relevant themes, ones frequently attributed to ‘Social Justice Warriors’. So all of a sudden, this leaves the world of journalism and is picked up in the seedy underbelly of the internet blogosphere (in particular forums such as 4chan, 8chan and to an extent Reddit). These same communities also targeted other women such as Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu for daring to treat video games culture as open to criticism (especially when it comes to the depiction of women and the

”

treatment of women developers), while commenters such as Felicia Day were harassed even when men were left alone for making similar statements. Whereas the initial attacks at least had a thin, self-justifiable veneer of ‘ethical concern’ (even if they disproportionately focused on one female developer with barely any evidence for a conflict of interest, as opposed to the rest of the industry giants), the harassment intensified – Quinn received death and rape threats, and was even subjected to doxxing (public release of private information). Eventually, Quinn obtained and published screenshots of chatlogs showing that the supposedly grassroots movement against corruption was actually a coordinated hate campaign, and since then the internet has continued to practically devour itself over the issue. So what, if anything, can we take away from this? That women still aren’t fully welcome as major characters in the industry unless they agree to stay silent? That the internet will still always be home to some of the worst examples of vitriol (duh...)? Or perhaps that, as with so many other cases in all areas of life, women who are perceived to have failed are given more flak and less sympathy than men in the exact same place, and will continue to be seen as having more power to upset the status quo. That inequality in rewards (pay gaps and glass ceilings) exists alongside an inequality in punishment, and it’s yet another battle for us to fight.

- Raphael Fisher

Check out ideas around ‘actuallyethics’ online: actuallyethics.tumblr.com

South Asian Feminism: Modern Girls, New Women While the history of Western feminism has been rose from just under 3,000 in 1908 to over 8,000 well discussed and documented, the equally in 1911, while on the other islands the total numrich and lengthy campaigns for women’s eman- ber of female students reached 32, 280 by 1911. cipation in South Asia have long been neglected The issue of universal suffrage was also at the from mainstream European historical enquiry. forefront of Indonesian feminism and was evenBritish involvement in South Asia had been tually realised during World War II. established long before the first Bristol student Although often shaped by circumstances distinct travelled to Thailand and it was within an atto those experienced by early Western femimosphere of anti-colonial activity and growing nists, this very brief overview certainly suggests nationalist consciousness, from the mid-19th to that the aims of both had frequent parallels and the mid-20th century, that feminist movements enjoyed similar successes. Why is it then that the for social and political reform were framed. history of South Asian feminism is so neglected in comparison with its European counterparts? Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Why is it then that the history of South Certainly the euro-centrism (1774-1833), a man often considered the father of of Western academia exAsian feminism is so neglected in commodern India, championed plains this in part, as does parison with its European counterparts? the reluctance of Western women’s rights on issues such as sati (the self-imcountries today to confront molation of widowers on the husband’s funeral the impacts, both then and now, of their imperial pyre), polygamy, and women’s education and pasts. In his novel 1984 George Orwell wrote property rights. Sati was legally ended in 1829, that “He who controls the past, controls the while the work of those like Sarojini Naidu was future. He who controls the present, controls the vital in opening up education for Indian women past.” It is certainly a rather cliché quote familiar in the 1920s, and universal suffrage was grant- to any student that’s ever written a History pered following independence in 1950. sonal statement. Yet at its core it certainly helps to explain why the academic study of women’s In the Dutch East Indies, now Indonesia, Raden movements in South Asia is such a small field. Ayu Kartini, (1879-1904), expressed a similar Ultimately it is still the same “he” controlling the desire for women’s emancipation through ed- present as the “he” that controlled the past and ucation and an abhorrence of the practice of it will only be with the continuing successes of polygamy. While pregnant in 1903, she dreamt campaigns for gender equality, both here and of a future for her daughter in which “she will abroad, that their histories will ever be fully acnever be compelled to do anything abhorrent to knowledged. her deepest feelings. What she does must be of her own free will. She will have… a father who - Harry Pearson will never force her in anything. It will make no difference to him if his daughter remains unmarried her whole life long.” It is a sentiment no doubt echoed by many living in either England or Indonesia today. Following Kartini’s untimely death, women’s education spread gradually throughout the Dutch East Indies. In Java and Madura, the number of girls in ‘native schools’

Sexism during Freshers’ Week It is common knowledge that going to university is a massive learning curve. So it was this, and my mother’s frequent insistence that ‘university is as much about learning life skills as it is about the academic side’, that I was thinking of as I arrived on my first day. It was only a few hours later that I heard of an accommodation rep choosing a young fresher as his ‘project’ for the week – an objectifying term which can only have indicated that he intended to pursue the girl persistently despite her level of interest. This being merely the first incident of many, I decided that learning to tackle sexism would indeed be a vital life skill: one that we must all learn in order to survive in this university environment. By the end of the week, I was not surprised when in a crowded club I felt the wandering hands of a drunken stranger behind me. Instinctively I called for my boyfriend to come over, and kissed him – this being the first thought I had to keep this stranger away. At first I was angry with myself. Why did I feel that the only way to fight sexism was with the help of another male? How could I fight for the rights of women in general when I could not even stand up for myself? But this was not my fault. Nor is it any young fresher’s fault when they are inexplicably cast as an object desired to be hunted for a week. We do not choose, as young and slightly naïve freshers, to be prayed upon in clubs and followed outside and perceived merely as aims and not people. None of us ask to be ‘objects’ or ‘goals’ or ‘projects’ for second years. This is not how we desire our first taste of university to be, nor is it a fair reflection on the experience as a whole. As, sadly, it is during Freshers’ Week that we are forced to experience this sexist environment at its height; the whole week depends solely on mass group outings and random strangers drinking in your kitchen. It is, therefore, inevitable to come across sexism in one situation or another. For me, it was only after the week had ended that I was able to settle with groups of people where sexism was not tolerated and where I no longer had to feel uncomfortable in my own flat.

Being a fresher is terrifying enough without having to be constantly on guard for unwelcome attention, and this is precisely the problem. Sexism is so engrained into a university culture that we expect it. As a woman, I felt uncomfortable throughout the week when talking to fellow male students. Thoughts constantly rushed round my head that perhaps I was their ‘project’, that I was already the brunt of a sexist game being played. I even remember the fear that I would be later cornered outside if I appeared too friendly. But how did I know that they weren’t equally as nervous as me? It is more than likely that these boys were just eager freshers like me, keen to make friends and get to know people. A male friend at another university then described an awkward encounter with a fellow course mate during a night out, in which he suggested they meet up some time to discuss their work. Her reaction was to avoid eye contact completely and nervously try to leave. It was only when he explained that he already had a girlfriend that she relaxed. Despite how awful I could clearly see he felt about the situation, I could not reassure him that she hadn’t felt uncomfortable. Having been that girl multiple times throughout my own Freshers’ week, I know that she will have done. At the other end of the spectrum, my flat-mate described how one of his first conversations was that with another male who was boasting about the number of girls he was going to ‘get’ during the week. He, like most of the rest of us, came to Freshers’ week with the intention of trying to fit in. Since when did this mean integrating into this sexist environment? I then witnessed a drinking game, which, predictably due to the amount of alcohol involved, turned personal and incredibly sexual. Each time a guy drank to a various scenario presented, there was a roar of laughter and a sharing of more stories. When a female in the room drunk, one male actually turned around to me and said ‘is she some sort of huge slut or something?’ I was gobsmacked and disgusted that a female telling the same story of which a male had just been applauded, could be so negatively labelled and looked down upon. Even more so, that I was meant to clarify this to him.

But my attention then turned to the rest of the males in the room. I began to think that while there was an expectation for us not to drink, there was also an expectation for them to drink – and this could be having an equally detrimental effect. It seemed that for a boy during Freshers’ Week, there was actually a huge amount of pressure to be involved in the sexist environment. Therefore, it seemed that in trying to fit in, many males were faced with a paradox. It is impossible to both fit in with this male sexist culture and at the same time, not alienate yourself from fellow female students. I began to see how objectification of women affects both genders. Never before had I considered that being perceived as a ‘predator’ can be equally as damaging as being perceived as an object. Sadly, after the week ended and my hangover cleared, I began to catch up on what had been happening in the rest of the UK. I only had to read the front page to see a story on a men’s rugby club at The London School of Economics that had been disbanded after distributing leaflets encouraging homophobia and sexism. I imagined what it would feel like if I had arrived at my own Freshers’ Fair to find women in sports being described as ‘slags’ and ‘beat-like’. It would certainly have put me off getting involved, as I’m sure it did with many LSE students. Then there was the video of the University of Nottingham first year students being encouraged by student union reps to chant a violent misogynistic song surrounding necrophilia. What disgusted me most about this was a comment in a guardian article on the issue, in which a student was made to feel ‘prudish’ for not joining in. Once again, this demonstrates the on-going pressure that students feel to join in with this misogynistic culture. Whilst watching that video, our immediate reaction is disgust at those involved. We do not think about the pressure they actually faced to join in, and how hard it is to be one of the few who refuses to comply with new social norms that Freshers’ Week demands.

That saying, I did see some positive reactions that came out of the obvious ever-growing sexual culture at university. Both Oxford and Cambridge announced their compulsory workshops for all first year university students, in which issues surrounding consent and sexual violence are explored. This has undoubtedly increased awareness surrounding sexism during Freshers’, both within their universities and for the general public who have read of this new step within the news. Both Oxford and Cambridge have, therefore, successfully highlighted the drastic change we need in attitudes towards sexual violence at university: creating awareness definitely being the first step we take to fighting it. However, whilst I applaud this attempt to stop sexual violence, it does seem too late. Surely we must introduce basic knowledge of what is acceptable much earlier on in the curriculum. If students come to university with the intention of objectifying and making others so uncomfortable, these views have already been pushed into their head. There is actually very little that any university can do. The absence of blurred lines throughout the week would have definitely been more pleasant, but it wouldn’t have stopped this sexist culture from emerging. I believe, therefore, that it is incredibly important to raise awareness of this emerging culture. We must fight against it, so that both women and men, who are so often overlooked in issues of sexism, can one day have a sexist-free university experience. - Maya Jones

#GetHomeContent As a teenager, I remember lying to my mum about how I got home each time I walked back from a party. In first year, I remember confessing to my flatmate that I felt apprehensive about walking home from my bar job at 5am. She told me: “just don’t make yourself look weak,” as though that was ever a conscious decision. I remember being catcalled on one of those sober walks across the Clifton Triangle, and arriving back to my flat drenched with sweat and fear. I remember the night I was followed, and the panic that kept me up. A panic that repeats itself time and time again, and leaves me clutching for my keys the moment I leave the busier streets. For a while, I reorganised my life around the anticipation of anxiety. I cancelled plans when I knew there would be no one else heading back in the same direction. Sometimes I made calls to pre-occupy my mind when I had to walk back in the dark hours alone – but only within the ‘acceptable hours.’ I never wanted to burden someone by waking them if they were sleeping.

Chloe Maughan

– 77 percent reported having been harassed. Students reported instances of catcalling and unwanted touching or grinding, including sexual assaults. One woman referred to an incident where she and her friend had asked a guy to give one of them some space whilst dancing, and he responded by telling her to fuck off and that she was ugly. Another incident discussed included a woman witnessing someone else being harassed whilst walking home. She writes: ‘A very drunk woman was alone and having some difficulty walking. I watched an older man, clearly wanting to take advantage of her state, approach her with open arms and gesture for her to leave with him. I walked behind for about two minutes. When it was very clear the attention was unwanted I shouted: “Hey! I think she is okay by herself tonight, you can leave now!” He looked shocked that a younger female had addressed him and left straight away with no argument. I helped her to the bus stop.’ However, what causes the difficulty for many women intervening in instances like this, or indeed rejecting advances themselves, both inside and outside of clubs, is the uncertainty of whether the harasser will respond with hostility. Indeed just this week, 22-year-old Tugce Albayrak was killed after she stepped in to stop a group of men harassing two women in a restaurant toilet in Germany. Women are placed in a difficult position, as they often feel support is unavailable from club and bar staff. One survey participant told us that “clubs need to take greater responsibility for the inappropriate behaviour that occurs [there], as the staff often ignore queries and concerns.” Additionally 55 percent of respondents said that they do not feel that they could approach club or bar staff if they felt unsafe or harassed, which means women can often be left unsupported in these instances.

‘Women are placed in a difficult position’

I was not scared of the dark, I was scared of the men who lurked there. The ones who refused to go away the nights I was working, so I was forced to continually disappear into a back room. The ones who grabbed me on introduction during nights out; the ones who continually grinded their bodies against mine, despite many attempts to move away from them; the ones who called me a “miserable bitch” when I politely asked them to step away. These are not isolated incidents, these are incidents that follow women through club corridors on a day-to-day basis. In fact, when Bristol Fem Soc asked women about their experiences at the bars and clubs on Clifton Triangle – popular among University of Bristol students

Whilst generally respondents feel safe within the bars and clubs (83 percent), there are still a significant proportion who do not. And on top of this, a worrying 50 percent of women don’t feel safe getting home. 82 percent of the women we surveyed usually walk home from nights out, of whom 53 percent often walk part or all of the way alone. Of those who walk back 49 percent do so because taxis are too expensive. This is further problematised by the fact that people are often removed from, or turned away from, bars or clubs, when they are held to be too drunk. Often this can leave people stranded outside clubs, separated from their friends. One respondent wrote: “Only this week my friend was turned away from a club on the Triangle, supposedly for being too drunk. She wasn’t, but assuming they thought she was, she was left alone outside the club with no one to check how she was getting home or to ask if she had any friends around. I’m so glad she was sober enough to wait for us to come find her, else I fear what come have happened to her. Bouncers need to take more responsibility for the vulnerable people they turn away, to take on a more paternal role.”

So what do we do about it? Bristol University Feminist Society are creating a new campaign entitled #GetHomeContent, which seeks to resolve some of these issues. Within this, a safe space will be created on Clifton Triangle. This will most likely take the form of a marquee, that will be open overnight to provide support to anyone who was made to feel unsafe or harassed whilst out. The staff will also help vulnerable individuals get home, for instance where they have been separated from their friends. Of the women we surveyed 90 percent felt this would improve Clifton Triangle. Look out for the campaign over the new term. 21

Feminist Horoscopes

Cancer: 21st June - 22nd July

Send your crush a copy of your favorite booke. Never forget to smash the patriarchy.

Sagittarius: 22nd November - 21st December

This would be a really good time for you to smash the patriarchy.

Capricon: 22nd December - 19th January

Why not try breaking down gender norms?

Leo: 23rd July - 22nd August

Be strong like a lion. You can do it.

Virgo: 23rd August - 21st September

Sit down. Make yourself comfortable. Play some music you truly love. Write a letter to your local MP.

Aquarius: 20th January - 18th February

For those lucky enough to share a horoscope with Harry Styles, we recommend smashing the patriarchy.

Pisces: 19th February - 20th March

Do what you want; consider smashing the patriarchy.

Libra: 22nd September -23rd October

Stay wily. Enjoy yourself. Smash the patriarchy.

Aries: 21st March - 19th April Smash the patriarchy.

Scorpio: 24th October - 21st November

Taurus: 20th April - 20th May Smash it.

Stay true to your heart. Listen to it when it tells you to smash the patriarchy.

Gemini: 21st May - 20th June Smaaaaaaaaaaash.

JOIN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL FEMINIST SOCIETY TO BECOME A CARD-CARRYING FEMINIST