"Keep the Cat Free"

17.05.2012

FELIX

The student voice of Imperial College London since 1949

Evidence for sexism in the Union?

Kelly Osborne and Marissa Lewis discuss the Union's refusal to approve a proposed Gender Equality Society
Kelly Osborne
Sharing

Inequality irritates me, particularly as it is so prevalent within our society. Women are oppressed on many different levels; here at Imperial the most recent evidence for this is the refusal by the NCC (New Clubs Committee) of a Gender Equality Society. The reasoning of the Union is as follows: we don’t need another women’s society as we have WSET and a Gender Equality Officer. Our attempts to set up this society were instead relegated to ‘campaign’ status within the Union, which, although no one seems to know what this is, seems fair enough on the face of it all. The problem is that this comes at a time when Felix is in trouble with the Telegraph for joking about Rohypnol and others have pointed out how anti-feminist the only Women’s society at Imperial is (see last week’s Felix). There seems to be no time like the present for a feminist or women’s rights group at the Union. Pity those in power disagree.

WSET’s goals, as outlined on its website, are: “Promoting SET careers amongst women in College” and “Enhancing the flow of girls in SET departments at University”. We aimed to set up a group to tackle more traditional feminist issues, such as the prevalence of rape in today’s society, domestic abuse, or the objectification of women in the media. Upon speaking to the WSET committee they admitted they are not keen for extra groups underneath them, as this would further divide their hard-earned corporate sponsorship. However, this means that the NCC’s suggestion that we form a subgroup under WSET would be a little difficult as we have different aims; they don’t want us, and we want autonomy.

When we mentioned that we would want to run campaigns to tackle the widespread sexual violence women experience in our society, the NCC were quick to ask what we would be doing to stop male rape or support male rape victims. There’s a meme for this line of questioning in feminist circles; it’s called ‘what about teh menz?’ Now, this might seem a bit dismissive as, after all, men do get raped too and it is every bit as awful as when a woman gets raped. However, until 50,000 men get raped every year in the UK and until 1 in 3 men can expect to get raped in their lifetimes (admittedly impossible to get truly accurate figures as up to 90% of rapes remain unreported), it isn’t an issue of gender equality. Rape is a gendered issue because the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are men and the overwhelming majority of victims are women, suggesting that our society has a problem with violence against women. Asking that men take the lion’s share of responsibility for this issue isn’t suggesting men can never be raped or that women can never be rapists; the same way that asking white people to take the lion’s share of responsibility for institutional racism isn’t saying white people can never be discriminated against or that people of other races can’t be racist; it’s simply saying that the two sides aren’t equal. The NCC asking what a feminist group will do for male equality is every bit as ridiculous and bigoted as, say, asking what an LGBT group will do for the well known problem of heterosexual discrimination.

Considering we go to a university that’s 70% male and has 3 separate all-male drinking societies, is asking for a separate, independent women’s group really that unreasonable? After all, there are a whole host of issues that female students are subject to, even when they don’t attend such a male-dominated university: a recent survey by the NUS found that 1 in 7 female students are victims of “serious sexual assault or violence” while at university; eating disorders are at their highest ever prevalence in our age group, and women are chronically underrepresented in student unions (with only 22% of university presidents being female). What is Imperial actually doing to ensure the welfare of female students? And, more importantly, why was a society that aimed to allow students to discuss these issues and campaign on behalf of our female students deemed to lack ‘substance’ and rejected?
The clubs that successfully passed our NCC were a new App development society and a Harry Potter society (Pottersoc). Although we would like to point out we have nothing against apps or Harry Potter in principle, it is a little insulting that the NCC views either of these things more important than the quest for women’s rights. After all, Emily Davison did not throw herself under the King’s horse for the right to play Angry Birds.

Adding final insult to injury, the Clubs and Societies Officer seemed to suggest that somehow our petition of 20 names (the requirement to start a new society at Imperial) was invalid as 6 signatures were from people who worked at the Union. This was because both of the authors work at the union and took our petition into work, which people were keen to sign. However the Deputy President (Clubs & Societies) claimed these people “did not care”; last time we checked it was not a requirement to be a misogynist to work at the Union but apparently it helps according to the NCC.

Comments (56 comments)

Post a comment

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 01:43

Agree Imperial could do with a women's rights society? Sign the petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/icwrs

generequalityforall

Friday February 17 2012 08:22

Yet another call for 'gender equality' whilst simply dismissing the opposite sex with the line 'what about teh menz?’ and borderline ridiculing the trauma associated with male rape. I suggest that the authors take a step backwards and realise that for equality both sexes should be involved. The fact that the WSET dismisses this proposal outlines how ridiculous it is in its current format. To tackle the issues at the heart of gender equality you need something more than a closed group of elevated feminists.

MsMandolin

Friday February 17 2012 08:46

@genderequalityforall, I dont think anything in the above article ridiculed male rape survivors, but whilst it remains "funny" to joke about raping your fellow female students and almost all women will be victims of, if not rape then sexual harassment; we need to concentrate on the safety of the women in our society.
To argue that women are truly equal is to completely ignore the half naked, emaciated women on every billboard, and the anachronistic standards that we are held to with regards to appearance and our behaviour. Just this week in America, a debate was held to argue that private companies did not have to offer (relatively expensive) birth control on their health plans. The panel for this debate was completely male and overwhelmingly religious. Women in all areas of society and the world are still denied body autonomy.
Until we have equal pay, equal shares of property, employment and parenting, and equal say over what happens to our bodies, a women's rights soc is needed

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 09:43

@generequalityforall: I'm sorry you feel that way, maybe some clarification is needed? I don't see how the article ridiculed male rape at all, especially as the only comment we made about it was that it happens and was 'every bit as awful' as female rape. All we were doing was pointing out that it isn't an example of gender inequality (for the reasons above). The line 'what about teh menz?' is referring to the fact that if you try to have a conversation about anything that mainly affects women (rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, etc), people inevitably bring up that these issues can affect men too as if that makes your point invalid. It isn't saying 'men can experience this too, aren't we all connected by shared suffering? Let's all band together to stop it'; it's saying 'men can experience this too, but you don't hear ME complaining about it, so shut up'. It's a derailment tactic, and a frustrating one at that, hence why it has become a bit of a meme.

correction

Friday February 17 2012 11:37

I would like to correct this article, the drinking clubs do not all ban women - one actually has a women as a current member. They are also not union clubs so are not under their control.

lulz

Friday February 17 2012 12:00

@correction: "One actually has a women as a current member."

NO WAY. ARE YOU SURE? YOU CRAZY HYSTERICAL FEMINIST!

May as well started your sentence with, "I don't want to be racist but..."

KELLY OSBORNE

Friday February 17 2012 13:02

@correction We know that the clubs aren't part of the union, and some of them, even if not in writing, are quite definetley all male. We both work at the union and being present at all male drinking soc nights have had torrents of abuse thrown at us along the lines of "GET THAT WOMAN OUT THE ROOM". If they want to have their silly boys clubs I don't care, I'm just saying that womens rights is a serious issue and if the union allow these clubs to be present at the union site, regardless of whether they are part of the union, they should allow us our platform for forwarding womens issues.

Under False Pretences

Friday February 17 2012 13:04

If you make a society called "Gender Equality Society", you better treat regard the issues of both (heck, ALL) genders. If you make a LGBT society you generally only have to give a crap about promoting LGBT issues.

If you only want to promote feminine issues (hmm, sounds like I'm talking about a bad case of thrush, I don't mean it that way!) then you go and make a feminist society, don't make a gender equality society under false pretences.

Also, maybe consider separating the "anti-sexual violence" issue from the "feminism" issue. Rape is bad enough to stand on its own, and if you aren't careful you're going to end up implying all men are rapists and that women don't rape anyone.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 13:13

@correction: Yeah, we're aware they're not union clubs, but they are able to book rooms and host events at the union and they have a fairly large presence in the student body. I'll take your point about the lone female member (even if we weren't aware of it), but that still leaves two 'all male' clubs and then one where a fraction of a percent of the total members are women, which I think doesn't really disprove the point.

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 13:22

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/icwrs/

If you agree in principle that there should be seperate womens society at imperial to WSET please sign our petition

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 13:29

@Under False Pretences: We initially chose 'gender equality society' so it didn't sound like we were discouraging men from joining, it's now 'women's rights society'. Feminism is about gender equality: the dictionary definition is 'the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes', so arguably there isn't much difference between 'feminism', 'gender equality' and 'women's rights'. They're all shooting for the same goals.

Also, I think the article explains how sexual violence is a feminist issue...

JDS

Friday February 17 2012 14:09

I really don't understand why people constantly comment on the drinking clubs, there's such a huge amount of ignorance surrounding them so I'm going to try and clear things up:
1. Only one of the club actually has a rule disqualifying women from joining.
2. The Links Club actually encourages females to participate.
3. There is no union affiliation, yes they can rent union rooms but so can anyone including companies etc not associated with Imperial.
4. Why do women have to be part of a mens club anyway? There are all male sports teams etc. why don't a group of like minded females get together and start your own girls club? I'm certain there's no-one who would protest. When someone refers to the clubs as sexist, it is in fact a misuse of the word, it's simply that you feel you're not allowed in so you want to be.
5. It's actually quite difficult to get into a club and they don't make up a large proportion of the student body, it is in fact a very small percentage...tbc

JDS

Friday February 17 2012 14:27

5 continued. The reason they appear to make up a large percentage of the student body is because each club has set days on which they go out, and as Imperial Union isn't exactly the most popular watering hole, even amongst the students of the university it's associated with, the clubs tend to make up the numbers.
6. I take you're point about "Take that woman out of the room" but I think even from an outsiders point of view it's obvious it wasn't meant seriously. And please don't try and refer me to the whole rape "banter" in the news earlier this week because that's taking it that step beyond and will discount any further argument you have.

Apart from that I have a few point's I'd like to raise, insulting the union and individuals only demeans your arguments and calling something/one sexist because they don't agree with the opposite sexs point of view is absurd. Also your article doesn't address any of your aims?

JDS

Friday February 17 2012 14:30

Oh and also, if you want to start your club just don't affiliate yourself with the union?

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 14:41

@JDS: Nowhere in the article do we object to the presence of these societies (or state we want women to join or form their own tie club, etc), we're just making the point that it kind of contributes to the male-dominated feel of Imperial. Also, allowing that one club that explicitly has a rule disqualifying women from joining (as opposed to the other two that simply implicitly discourage or do not invite women to join) to host events at Imperial, is giving them a platform we're not affording a women's rights group, which seems a little odd. But yes, would like to clarify that nothing in the article is disparaging of the tie clubs, calls them sexist, or actually recommends their dismissal, it's just an example of the male-dominated feel of Imperial. I think the debate over tie clubs is probably best left to its own forum.

Patrick Snape

Friday February 17 2012 15:16

@Marissa Lewis: Whilst I agree that this is probably not the forum to have the debate over tie clubs I still feel I need to throw in my two-cents. Whilst you may claim to have recognised that the tie clubs have no official affiliation with the Union/University you still don't really seem to be grasping the point. When you say "... is giving them a platform we're not affording a women's rights group" you are talking nonsense. As previously stated by JDS the only rooms that the tie clubs ever book are booked through the events services and these are available to external companies as well as clubs and societies. The tie clubs book these rooms as external organizations. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from booking the JCR and holding your Women's Right's Society meetings in there as an external organization.

evidence OF poor writing

Friday February 17 2012 15:38

Evidence OF sexism . . . a man wouldn't have got that wrong

what your title actually suggests is that you are about to lay down some evidence for the support of sexism at the union . . . .

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 15:46

@evidence OF poor writing

Actually the editor titled the piece..... hes male... you loose

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 15:50

* He's and lose. Just getting so frustrated at peoples' attitudes.

What about a project?

Friday February 17 2012 16:24

Why didn't you apply to start a project instead? That's clearly where a campaigning equality group should sit, not as a club. Gender equality isn't a sport!

JDS

Friday February 17 2012 16:38

@marrissa lewis. Maybe you didn't say it in those words, but they were clearly implied. And you've completely missed my point, just to take Patrick Snapes point further. The Tie Clubs act as external organisations and book just as any other would, and so the union can provide a "platform" for your Woman's Rights Group just as it does for all the charities, schools and companies that use its facilities.

Kelly Oakes

Friday February 17 2012 16:46

Good luck with getting the society set up. Judging by the number of signatures on the petition now there's no way the NCC can turn it down again.

If it were me, I'd stick with Gender Equality Soc as a name (even if for no other reason than to distance yourselves from all the 'Men's Rights' rubbish). Arguably in this country at least women have most of the same rights as men, its about more subtle (and sometimes less subtle!) discrimination. Or even Feminism Soc, seeing as men can be feminists too – might be more inclusive sounding than 'Women's Rights'?

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 16:54

@Kelly Oakes: Yeah, I agree with you and did type that response a little quickly, I was just trying to reference Kelly's earlier comment in the responses and, as I was in a rush, my wording was off. Considering we only mentioned the tie clubs existed (and only mentioned this fact once), I just didn't want the debate over tie clubs to take over the main message of the article.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 16:56

Whoops, the above comment was obviously not meant for Kelly Oakes but Patrick Snape and JDS, sorry!

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 17:02

@Kelly Oakes: Hey, thanks for your response (and sorry for the earlier misplaced tag).

Haha, everyone I've spoken to has different opinions on the name! To be honest, I'm leaning towards 'Feminist and Gender Equality Soc which Welcomes People of all Genders!', but FGESWPG isn't a very catchy acronym...

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 17:06

@JDS: I'm not sure, all we said was: "Considering we go to a university that’s 70% male and has 3 separate all-male drinking societies, is asking for a separate, independent women’s group really that unreasonable?". We're not saying that we should change either of those things (either start kicking men out to even up the gender imbalance or get rid of the societies), but suggesting they contribute to a sort of male-dominated environment which might make a women's group appropriate. I have nothing against the tie clubs! And again, their existence isn't the main point of the article.

Stephen Smith

Friday February 17 2012 17:11

@Marissa Lewis: But then that implicitly suggests that we wouldn't campaign against homophobia, racism, transphobia, and other similar things that feminists tend to care about.

The only way to please everyone is to call it the Anti-Discrimination Society, but then that's a rubbish name.

Maybe Feminist Soc is the best option. Just ignore all the Men's Rights crap about "feminist" being a gendered term and therefore discriminatory.

intrestingbut

Friday February 17 2012 17:12

This comment did not follow our commenting policy and has been rejected

Colin Hill

Friday February 17 2012 17:22

What we seem to be missing here is that the tie clubs at Imperial represent over 80 years of tradition and history. At some point the Union decided that they could not allow such societies to be affiliated with the university for various reasons. You also seem to be missing the point of how much good the tie clubs do at Imperial. For example the RSM Exec is largely made up of members of the Chaps club. Before you say that this clearly highly how much the male presence dominates the RSM it is often noted that very few other students feel passionate enough to run for these positions.

Colin Hill

Friday February 17 2012 17:23

Continued
Furthermore the ties clubs actually do a large amount to raise the profile of college to the outside world. All 3 clubs regularly raise large amounts of money for charity throughout the year. The Links club has raised over £300 in the last 2 years for Oxfam from the yearly book sale and looks well on target to raise well over £300 this year for sport relief.
Maybe when the "Gender Equality Soceity" (which I highly doubt had any male signatures on it's petition) does some good for the student of Imperial you can start having a pop at the tie clubs.

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 17:55

@Colin Hill: of course we had male signatures, silly. The articles is about creating a platform for campaigning for women's rights, in reference to my comment above, I don't care about the tie clubs! We don't have a pop at them if you read the article properly

Eleanor

Friday February 17 2012 18:03

@Colin Hill: We do not have a problem with the Ties clubs and if you had read the comments above you would have seen that. The question we are asking is why can't we have a Feminist/Gender Equality society as well as, not instead of these? Why does the Union (which is supposed to represent students) not want to support a society working towards gender equality?

Also "Maybe when the "Gender Equality Soceity" (which I highly doubt had any male signatures on it's petition) does some good for the student of Imperial you can start having a pop at the tie clubs." ? Firstly, this hurts to read. Secondl, the petition is not a secret. There were plenty of male names on it. If you would care to visit http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/icwrs/ you will see that it is not gender-exclusive to care about equal rights.

John (a man)

Friday February 17 2012 18:33

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/icwrs/

Doubt all you like Colin, but the petition for Gender Equality Society is currently comprised of a quarter male signatures. That's an overwhelmingly better gender equality than the tie clubs, although of course we shouldn't forget that "one actually has a woman as a current member".

Not being a woman myself, I can't vouch for this completely, but I would bet the equivalent of the entire Links Club Oxfam donation that women not being 'passionate enough' is not the reason they are under-represented at the RSM Exec. Perhaps the disparity is indicative of an often neglected, still-pervasive social discriminatory force at work ...

By the way, the society has not been set up yet 'to do some good' ... that's kind of the point of the article. And the authors are not 'having a pop' at the tie clubs, to borrow a phrase from the 1950s. Calm yourself.

Anonymous

Friday February 17 2012 18:35

£300 fundraised? must do better. amnesty soc raised £180 in ONE HOUR in December with about 10 people. How big is Links? Any fundraising is good fundraising but I really hope you're not expecting a medal or anything.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 19:00

@Stephen Smith: That's very true, I'm personally very happy to call it feminist soc. It's just pretty easy to fall into trap of trying to please everyone (although I guess that comment is kind of ironic given the response to this article!)

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 19:12

@What about a project?: neither is harry potter, but the union think that needs a society.

Hilary Andrew

Friday February 17 2012 20:04

I do understand that the authors would not like this article to develop into a conversation about tie clubs, however in response to all the many comments about the subject.

I am the "lone female member" of the links club. Female engineers ARE actively encouraged to come along to events. Furthermore I am not the only woman, I am just the only current female student member.

You have many valid points in your article and I wish you luck when you next apply to become a society. However, I would like to raise that a large population of the male student body are very good at defending women's rights, especially against sexual harassment. I never feel as safe on a night out as when I am with the links club.

Kelly Osborne (Author)

Friday February 17 2012 20:41

@Hilary Andrew: I'll repeat what I said: The articles is about creating a platform for campaigning for women's rights, in reference to my comment above, I don't care about the tie clubs! We don't have a pop at them if you read the article properly.

Further to this I'm not trying to suggest that men don't defend women's rights. The club would not exclusively be about the attitudes on campus, but also worldwide. People claim there is no issue with Gender equality left to fight for, yet native women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive! clearly the world is not yet some Utopian society where men and women are treated the same.

Chandana Shankar

Friday February 17 2012 23:34

@Kelly Osborne: And similarly there is a large gap between maternity and paternity rights, see Fathers4Justice and the rest. You simply cannot have a Gender Equality Society without addressing both sets of injustices. I'm sure you'll have much better luck with the more honestly named Feminist Society.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Saturday February 18 2012 02:54

@Chandana Shankar: Feminism is about gender equality, so I don't think our soc's title was dishonest, especially as we haven't mentioned our stance on maternity and paternity rights. What I can say is that all the feminists I know are in favour of a review of policies regarding maternity/paternity stuff, especially leave, as these are usually based on the outdated idea that women should put family first as this is what they're good at, while men should be focussed on their careers as this is what they're good at (i.e. gender stereotyping). To me, it seems a little sad that feminism has got a bit of a bad reputation as I believe (as do many) that the liberation of the women is linked to the liberation of men, especially in examples of issues like this. A lot of people tend to believe that feminism is about the promotion of women's rights at the sake of male freedom, but really it's about how promoting equality in society benefits everyone.

Chandana Shankar

Saturday February 18 2012 09:51

Marissa, having just taken a look at your application, you discuss women's issues really well. However what strikes me immediately is you use the phrase 'gender equality' a few times and then only go on to discuss women's issues. This, to me, is clear grounds for rejection. I agree with all of your comments above (the 2.54am comment), however I wonder whether you mentioned them at NCC because you certainly did not mention them in the main article. When you come back with a gender balanced argument the NCC will undoubtedly accept you - or if you want to keep your current application then a name change should do the trick.

I wish you luck at the next NCC, and don't get disheartened - several now successful societies were rejected several times. However I think it's important you note that rejection at NCC has nothing to do with the values of the union. The union does not think you're less important than Apps or Harry Potter, merely that they had a more watertight application...cont

Chandana Shankar

Saturday February 18 2012 09:54

@Marissa Lewis: If an 'Against Killing' society came to NCC but they were actually only against killing babies they they'd be asked to come back again with a better name. This doesn't mean the union doesn't care about dying babies (or adults for that matter).

Stephen Smith

Saturday February 18 2012 10:11

@Chandana Shankar: That's probably the most spurious use of "similarly" that I've ever seen. There's no way you can even compare misogyny and misandry. It's like saying "Black people may get stabbed for their skin colour but similarly white people sometimes get called bad names". A Gender Equality society should care about paternity rights, but they're fairly low down in importance compared to other issues.

You also seem to think Feminism is exclusively about fighting misogyny. It isn't. Just because it has "fem-" in the name doesn't make it a gendered term. Feminists care about misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and pretty much all kinds of hateful discrimination. It just happens that, in Britain at least, misogyny is the one of those that requires the most fighting.

Chandana Shankar

Saturday February 18 2012 10:19

@Stephen Smith: I completely disagree - misogyny might need fighting the most in Saudi Arabia but here? Where a man gets looked down on for being a homemaker as much as a woman does for 'abandoning her kids' and being a career woman? Where women are the 'obvious' choice of principle parent in the case of divorce? It's not to say that sexism doesn't exist in this country, but to me we commit a comparable number of wrongs to men as we do to women. And sorry but if a Feminist cares about misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, racism etc. then pick a name that represents this. Having "fem-" in the title does indicate that you only care about misogyny and perceptions matter.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Saturday February 18 2012 14:17

@Chandana Shankar: I think if, in our society, babies were killed a disproportionally large amount compared to adults, it would make perfect sense for an 'Against Killing' society to tackle the killing of babies as a priority.

The same with gender equality. There is still a pay gap; sexual assault, domestic abuse, sexual harassment (etc) are gendered crimes that happen all the time in the UK; women are under represented in practically every forum (be it business, Parliament, etc); the depiction of women in the media is often completely objectionable; the list goes on. And that's without mentioning female infanticide, FGM, rape as a weapon of war, and any other problem on a global scale. I'm not sure how that even begins to compare to the wrongs we do men in society.

A term that represents a person that cares about 'misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc' is a feminist. People just tend to misunderstand the term because it has 'fem' in the title.

anon

Saturday February 18 2012 14:23

This comment did not follow our commenting policy and has been rejected

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Saturday February 18 2012 14:52

@Chandana Shankar: Also, if the name was the only sticking point (which, to be honest, seems unlikely), why was this not mentioned to us? We were told that we 'lacked substance as a society', which definitely suggests that the name wasn't our main fault. If the name was the only reason we were rejected, surely simply telling us this would have been logical? Of course, it is unfair to ask you as you weren't on the NCC that we presented to, but the suggestion that all we needed to do was change our name to get passed doesn't really fit with anything we were told or asked about at the NCC.

Chandana Shankar

Saturday February 18 2012 15:04

@Marissa Lewis: Well I'd definitely recommend changing the name if you were to apply again. Additionally I'd suggest you came up with a core weekly activity. Everything you mentioned seems great and productive - but more ideas about how exactly you'd foster discussion about feminist issues (i.e. have a lead speaker, have structured debates etc.) would help. Additionally you focus very much on the society being for women. It's ok to have a society about women's issues but it's important you make it clear on the form that you encourage everyone to attend events, workshops and so on. A Capella were previously rejected by NCC because the Techtonics only admitted male singers. After rejigging the format they were accepted.

Your form showed you had lots of really good ideas and I agree that we don't have a forum in which to discuss some of these issues at Imperial - but you need to know exactly what you'd be doing on a weekly basis to get passed. I'd be more that happy to discuss this in person with you...

Chandana Shankar

Saturday February 18 2012 15:08

Cont...as I'm sure would the DPCS and indeed the SCC chair (the management group I guess you'd be a part of).

When the union's resources are as tight as they are (in terms of money and space) we can't afford to go making any group of people that have a common interest into a society. If this group of people has a unique structured activity they wish to carry out which they can adequately describe, show that there is sufficient interest for and won't exclude anyone from then they often get granted society 'status.' But like I said, feel free to email me if you'd like any advice on reapplying, although I imagine the DPCS would probably be a better person to contact.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Saturday February 18 2012 15:25

@Chandana Shankar: Yeah, your points seem fair. I do state on the application it is 'important to emphasise our society is welcome to all and that men are an integral part of the feminist movement' and on the petition of 20 names, a significant proportion (forty percent) of those that signed were male. I assumed this would be enough to show that both genders were welcome.

I think making what we would do on a weekly basis seem more structured would help for sure, and I would be happy to work on this when we reapply. I suppose it's a bit difficult as a lot of our activities would be dictated by what the society would want to tackle, rather than what I, as an individual, felt was important to tackle, which is why it might have seemed a little vague.

It's possible we just caught the NCC on a bad day as if they had approached us in the way you have, I really doubt we would have been offended.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Sunday February 19 2012 02:57

@Chandana Shankar: Also should probably take this opportunity to point out that we're not saying the fact that the NCC rejected us is sexist in itself, but we're taking issue with some of the comments made at the meeting as well as the implication we shouldn't form this soc because there was no need for one at Imperial and that Imperial students don't care about these issues. That doesn't really reflect well on the union.

If the problem was we weren't clear enough about what structure our weekly meetings would take and we should make it even more obvious men are welcome, that obviously wouldn't have prompted an article. But that wasn't what came across at the NCC.

Still, thanks a lot for your suggestions!

You are ignorant

Sunday February 19 2012 11:03

Are you for real? Your comments basically highlight everything that is wrong with feminists. You claim to promote "gender equality" but you are wholly uninterested in anything to do with men's rights. You just say "oh, men have all the rights anyway, women are the downtrodden minority", but it's just not as simple as that. There are plenty of men gender equality issues to deal with but you don't seem at all interested in addressing them. This is in itself sexist. Just admit what you are and call it "Feminism Society".

Sigh

Sunday February 19 2012 12:25

@You are ignorant: love how you say the article/comments 'highlight everything that is wrong with feminists' before making it clear you have no idea what feminism is.

Sigh 2

Sunday February 19 2012 21:58

@You are ignorant: You are an idiot. You've clearly not read the article and neither do you have a clue what feminism is. Here's a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.

Colin Hill

Tuesday February 21 2012 12:29

@Stephen Smith: I don't mean to be pinickity but this "Feminists care about misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and pretty much all kinds of hateful discrimination." is completely untrue. I'm pretty sure that caring about all of those things is just being a reasonable person. While feminists and feminist authors may also care about all injustice the label feminism specifically refers to campaigning for equal rights for women.
To quote from the dictionary:
"Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."
As far as I can tell the reason the society was not passed was because you didn't really present a society you presented a campaign. And by writing sensationalist articles like this your only damaging your claims.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Tuesday February 21 2012 13:15

@Colin Hill: Well, yes, feminists do tend to be reasonable people.

Even if you believe feminists exclusively care about equal rights for women, it is arguably impossible to push for this while ignoring all the other injustices in society. Women are affected by misogyny, misandry, homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc, so if you're campaigning for equal rights for women, it makes sense that you also have to tackle these other issues as all of them can negatively impact women. The other reason feminists tend to care about these issues is that even non gender specific discrimination (e.g. homophobia, racism), has different effects on you and rears its ugly head in different ways based on your gender, making them perfectly valid topics in feminist discourse. Another reason is that feminists understand the type of marginalisation that victims of other forms of discrimination also experience, making them more likely to empathise with these groups and want to campaign on their behalf.

Marissa Lewis (Author)

Tuesday February 21 2012 13:24

Of course, I can't speak on behalf of all feminists, but in all the feminist circles I'm aware of, these are quite commonly recurring themes.

Also, I'll reiterate what I said above: we're not saying the NCC rejecting a feminist soc is sexist, we're just taking issue with some of the comments made at the meeting and the implication Imperial doesn't care about these issues/thinks they're already covered by WSET.

I'm not too sure why you think we presented a campaign, when a women's/feminist/gender equality soc is pretty common for a university to have. The NUS actually runs women's conferences throughout the year and organises campaigns for university women's groups to participate in (yes, I'm aware we're not in the NUS, but a lot of universities are). Maybe you think gender equality is better suited to a 'campaign' over a 'society', but isn't that something you could just as easily argue for our LGBT soc or Amnesty International? We're all just campaigning for equality, after all.

No really, a project

Tuesday February 28 2012 05:17

@Kelly Osborne: Specifically a project as opposed to a club is one which sits within the representation & welfare area of the union, rather than clubs & societies. Clubs are primarily social or sporting, whereas projects are primarily campaigning or fund raising.

This separation is to help projects access the funding, resources and advice easier for their activities rather than having funding and support limited in the same way as it is for social clubs.

Have you made an application to NPC (new projects committee) or was this suggested at any time? I think you'd have far more success there!

(Also, where is this harry potter club you were talking about..?)

Comment anonymously or log in

Anonymous comments are moderated before appearing on the website. Comments posted while logged in appear immediately and are moderated later. Read our commenting policy for more information.

Commenting Policy

Felix is fully supportive of fierce and frank discussions. We will generally allow comments that are on-topic and avoid personal attacks; criticising someone's decision is allowed, criticising their weight, for example, is not.

Comments may be deleted/rejected if they:

  • are off-topic
  • contain ad-hominem attacks
  • are potentially libellous
  • use excessively foul language
  • are obviously spam

Email article

Evidence for sexism in the Union?
(Seperate multiple address with a comma)