feminist blogs

What a load of contradictory right-wing bollocks.

What’s the point in voting down a motion that, whilst not asking CUSU to do anything beyond asking NUS to do something, is a statement of principle against attacks on the welfare state, and then moaning about how NHS funding is being pulled from a sports injury clinic students use?

Thankfully RESPECT didn’t get no-platformed (on the basis that the “test” for no-platform that formed part of the motion was an unfair representation of CUSU’s no-platform policy, not that the allegations were untrue, because, despite heroic defence from Cambridge RESPECT, most undoubtedly are), but motions defending the welfare state and against ultra vires laws (which curtail our rights to decide democratic what to do as a union!) were voted down, whilst our motion against the academic boycott of Israel was “not put” on the basis that it has nothing to do with students. I suppose it doesn’t, if said students are as blind as most Cambridge ones seem to be.

The problem with CUSU is the ever-raging debate about “students as students” versus holding political opinion and acting on it. There’s no reason why a strong, active union shouldn’t do both, working on welfare issues and representing student’s political views on the wider world are not mutually exclusive.

I was going to write a full report, but I’m just too disillusioned. Tonight we learnt that not all women are oppressed (why do we have a women’s union then?), that it’s offensive to suggest the Economist is rabidly pro-free market, that this motion is basically Islamophobic (how many different ways can we suggest it attacks Muslims with saying the I word?), attacking the “Muslim way of life” and imposing Western ideals on Iraq. Apparently there are those who agree with it, who disagree with the “rabid” wording; anyone know how you can condemn Islamism without actually appearing to condemn it? Perhaps if more people knew what Islamism is and why opposing it doesn’t mean hating Muslims, we might get somewhere. It was generally agreed the motion was offensive and inaccurate.

More tomorrow night after the CUSU marathon. I’m off to bed.

ooh, 3 hours to go and I’ve already been accused of petty student political fighting for submitting a motion critical of RESPECT’s policy (or non-policy) on a women’s right to choose. Not to mention how my motion on supporting OWFI against Islamists in Iraq has been forwarded for approval to the Islamic society. I have a feeling tonight is going to be very interesting…

Braved the freezing Cambridge cold to leaflet outside Galloway’s ARU talk tonight, with an A4 piece on supporting women and workers in Iraq. Ten minutes after arrival my comrade Josh and I were asked to leave the ARU site on the grounds that no political leafletting was allowed on campus; the head of security got particular irate and was very rude, tearing up a leaflet as we went. Clearly it was bollocks, no university blanket banning political activity, but we adjourned to public land outside the university to continue. I was then asked to leave again, from the pavement outside the campus (and refused, within my rights), and Josh was watched by a security guard who proceeded to tell him that it was the contentious nature of the material, not the fact it is political, that was the basis for our removal. Some people may be offended, so we had to go. This is further evidenced by the fact our friend from Cambridge Against the Arms Trade were allowed to leaflet, so much for the political material ban.

RESPECT; they don’t like being challenged.

10. You cry for your mother.
9. You cross the street without looking for cars.
8. Snack time is a necessity.
7. You bundle up for the outdoors without caring what you look like
6. You stay at home and play games with your friends.
5. You wear your backpack on both shoulders.
4. You wear big mittens.
3. Playing in the snow is a legitimate activity.
2. You take naps.
1. You look forward to cheese toasties.

In other news, CUSU open wasn’t quorate… so guess what’ll be debated again tonight… Joy!

In other other news, I got elected as Open Portfolio Campaigns Officer to Women’s Union last night, on a platform of Women’s Rights Worldwide. I said “solidarity” a lot, and it didn’t even seem to go against me.

It was open council tonight, the first one of my time here where I could vote, so I went along, papers in hand, not expecting there to be much controversy; the two motions involved one RESPECT one (though not labelled as such) about generally being against the occupation, writing to Downing Street to say so, and sending delegates from CUSU to a “peace conference”, and a reaffirmation of the lapsed no-platform policy, specifically naming the BNP and HuT amongst others. My prediction was a no for the RESPECT one, seeing as it was patently a RESPECT one and people seem quite jaded about Iraq here, and a yes for the no-platform. Easy, simple, home by half eight.

I was a bit wrong, though the outcomes will be as suspected if it turns out we were quorate (no one seemed to actually know, or check). The arguments made against the Iraq motion were, actually, shit. No one questioned the parts about “troops out now”, as I thought the more politically educated and pedantic types who frequent these things would; we ended up with speeches from various members of CUSU about why it was “not our business” (though we have policy on other external, politic, not necessarily directly student related things like sweatshops), “anti-democratic” (apparently the structures we have are only sufficient for motions CUSU as a whole like) and “pointless” (on the basis that CUSU can’t do anything, so much for statements of principle then). I’m glad the motion fell, but the rubbish reasoning of a fair few CUSU officers pissed me right off; it’s the same rhetoric you get at NUS conference, justifying not doing anything at all outside the sphere of education. The fact the chair blatantly favoured CUSU exec people didn’t help, with one guy speaking five times whilst new hands were up.

The no-platform policy is a no-brainer to me, but I didn’t count on the naivety and pedantry of some; we debated it much longer than Iraq, most objections coming from the idea that it’s against freedom of speech. Since when it has been anti-freedom of speech to have policy compelling the Union to facilitate protest when fascist speakers are lent the legitimacy of a Cambridge University platform I don’t know; this is not an issue of banning groups or their hate speech, but of being against it on our campus. It’s wrong to frame it as a freedom of speech issue at all; it’s a student safety issue. I’m willing to bet the people voting against never had to face BNP/HuT intimidation simple for being black, Jewish, gay or even looking a bit gay like me. No opposition to the inclusion of HuT from what seemed to be the SWP/RESPECT contingent, apart from one guy asking what evidence we had on them; Jess Kosmin stepped in with some direct quotes from before they cleaned up their act to no further questioning. Fingers crossed we’ll have had 100 people (from a student body of 18,000) there, and it’ll become policy.

I haven’t felt like blogging much recently, with my only free time being devoted to my monkey and sleep, but tonight I have an hour or so and a cider-loosened keyboard hand to rant about some more Cambridge stuff.

SPS is not a doss; I’m doing 2 essays a week, up to 3000 words each and with a tonne of reading in between. The eight hour lecture limit is misleading, and Cambridge wide myths of lack of work are untrue. Most of it is pretty interesting, even if I do have to tear myself away from stuff I’d rather be reading; I’m currently working on an essay about the lesbian parenting debate and one on Marx’s perception of the evils of capitalism, which is far better than last week’s efforts on Hobbes and liberal theory. Starting with Hobbes et al. made me want to go to Leeds, but it’s picking up a bit now.

I’ve been having a bit of an activist burn out in the midst of this work, mostly due to my experiences at the Women’s Union. Everyone was very nice and friendly, and the whole process seemed democratic and open, but it was just… a bit lacking in the anger department. The focus seems to be more bourgeois individualist than solidarity with women’s struggles across the world, evidenced by the priority campaign “Women in Sport”. Ok, so it’s hand in hand with one on Stop Violence Against Women, but even this seems a bit vague; a “vigil” being held rather than a trip to Reclaim the Night, coupled with a lot of rhetoric about “inclusivity” and “positive action” when I suggested protests and demos about the various stripping and generally demeaning events some colleges have proposed. The feel of the evening was that, at least the vocal ones, were resisting the stereotype of angry feminists, leaving me wondering what I was doing there. As someone who believes feminist should reclaim the positive nature of all our actions, against such bullshit spectres of humourless man-hating feminist stereotypes, I was a tad disheartened.

Of course, there’s the AWL branch here (hello!) so all is not totally lost, and it was refreshing to arrive at a meeting after Women’s Union to talk to people who don’t think radical is a dirty word. I also went to an AWL dayschool on globalisation and imperialism on Saturday, with the monkey, and met lots of people who disprove the standard “once you get into the real world you’ll change you mind” line. A busy Sofie is a happy Sofie, and all this through battling with freshers’ flu!

Finally, tonight was the second meeting of Cambridge Against the Arms Trade, a project I wasn’t quite sure about from the first meeting; lots of well meaning anti-arms sentiment, but a drastic misconstruing of my comrade Josh’s point that it could easily turn into nothing more than institutional conscience cleansing without a framework of ethical investment. Basically, the campaign is trying to get Cambridge colleges to disinvest in the arms trade, and I had my misgivings about how focusing on a small area of unethical investment would make a difference in light of the fact they’ll probably just go pour the money into pharmeceuticals or something.

Tonight a lot of my wonderings got answered by some very sensible responses, such as a clarifying of the aim of this project as a symbolic rejection of arms by a huge national institution, rather than a “looky, we’re so ethical” sort of thing. That makes me feel a bit less like a crap “Make Poverty History” style aimless activist, so it’s all good. I’m liking the enthusiastic feel of the group, lots of people with lots to say and strategies to get things done, so onward with the letter writing! erm…

(This clearly won’t work, as bursars really aren’t going to say “ok, we’ll be nice people and disinvest”, but at least we’re giving them a chance to show they’re not a bunch o’ cunts before we go any further!).

Ooh and finally, I want to arrange a protest about the use of child labour and sweatshop conditions outside Disney in Cambridge sometime soon; anyone up for it?

Here’s Spiked Online getting it wrong again;

The NUS adopted a ‘No Platform’ policy against Hizb ut-Tahrir back in the mid-1990s, before the UK had even thought of having a war on terrorism. Then, it was enough to talk in vague terms about the group’s record of ‘violence, intimidation and harassment towards other Muslim students, Jewish students, Hindu students, lesbian, gay and bisexual students and women students’. […] Every NUS ban is predicated upon the assumption that ordinary, vulnerable students need to be protected from dangerous ideas by a ban.

How many times does the argument about no-platform have to come up before some gets it that some groups make life really fucking hard for others if they are allowed on campus? It’s not about ideas, you can’t protect someone from an idea and you shouldn’t try, it’s about student safety. NUS is not necessarily about to launch into a campaign to ban HuT, BNP etc. nationally just because they’re not welcome on our campuses.

But of course, “practical Union protects members” doesn’t make for good headlines, right?

Here. Teehee.

Now all we need is someone within the student movement to do the bound-to-be-even-funnier SWSS Watch…

So we watched this film today, a short produced by MGM prior to the release of Gone With The Wind which has been heavily censored since the 1970s. It portrays the American South’s “golden era of chivalry” without any reference to slavery being in any way wrong; the usual caricatures of the happy and grateful slave are included, with portrayals of the brave southern boys who risked death to break the British blockade of the African coast to “keep the cotton industry alive” (read: force more people into slavery).

Clearly a modern critique of this film, being influenced by postcolonial theory, would see this as highly revisionist and offensive; “black cargo” refers to real human beings, and slavery is something recognised now as a great atrocity as opposed to a fact of life. The fact the film was produced in 1939 is also part of it’s shock factor (the focus of the exam question); although it shows how the North “ruined the age of chivalry” (read: ended slavery), the fact this film could be considered acceptable just goes to show how racist and colonialist attitudes were still rife.

But I’m just trying to make myself look good by saying all this in my essay. People who criticise old films through a gendered, class-aware or postcolonial lens are just picking on “easy targets” and just think they’re better than everyone else. Films such as this were technically brilliant and entertaining, and that’s all that should matter about them. How dare I be so unfair on audiences of the times? In thirty years no doubt people will look back and call the audiences of today racist for tolerating the films we do. (Such as American History X, apparently a racist and reactionary film… someone hasn’t watched it).

When the fuck did it become worse to call films out on racism than it is to actually be racist? People need to stop being so fucking scared of the word. But people like me just think we’re so good, right, and all political theory is just posturing.

I call bullshit on that.