Evidence for sexism in the Union?

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.