The Students’ Union Women’s Officer’s attempt to ban “Lads’ Mags” from the SU Shop was met with sexist heckling and wolf-whistling at last week’s Union General Meeting.
Jessie Robinson, addressing a packed Old Theatre, argued that publications such as FHM and the Sun promoted sexism on campus and should be removed from the shelves. Her speech was given short shrift by members of the Athletics Union (AU), seated in the balcony, who held up copies of the contested publications in protest at the motion.
Taking to the stage amidst booing from a portion of the audience, Robinson asserted that the images contained within FHM and the Sun present women “as if they are only objects in sexual relationships”, and that this motion was “a chance for us to say that we reject sexism on campus”. Combating claims that this was censorship, the Women’s Officer countered that “this is a group using its power to boycott an institution” but that it was “not taking away your freedom of choice [because] sexism should not be a choice”.
Further, Robinson suggested that these magazines “promote a hetero-normative image of what constitutes normal sexual relations”, and that she had felt compelled to submit this motion in order that “no one should be made to feel uncomfortable or patronized”. Finally, she argued that such images were not only “damaging to women in terms of body image”, but also that they were “directly linked to trends in sexual violence”. Robinson’s speech was received in a negative light by many students present, who were persistent in their wolf-whistling, despite the direct warnings of UGM Chair, Jack Tindale.
The first speaker to oppose the motion was Masters student Sam Tempest Keeping, who gave a concise argument that self-consciously veered away from “demagoguery” and focused on issues of freedom of choice. Accepting that “self-image is something we are all aware of”, and that “influences on campus [have] a lot of negative effects on women and men”, Keeping said, “I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t do, but by removing it [the magazines] from campus, you’re doing just that”. The audience’s reaction to Keeping’s speech was generally positive, though his final comment, that “we all want to read the Sun” was met with some vociferous opposition.
Seconding the motion was Anja Kahlo, who asserted that she was “against the degradation of women in our SU Shop”, and that this motion would combat the “systematic dehumanization of women in our society”. Having claimed that “young people receive information about sexuality mainly from the media”, and so these magazines had a profound effect on the self-esteem of women on campus.
The final speaker against the motion was Marina Boterashvili, who argued that since “we all perve”, it was acceptable to keep these publications on campus, in that men understood that women in reality “don’t look like that”. Recognizing that these sexually suggestive images are “a fantasy”, Boterashvili suggested that these magazines served a demand, and kept her “hypothetical boyfriend busy with his right hand”. Finally, she implored students to focus on more serious issues, claiming that the Students’ Union was “elitist” to propose this band, since it “sells cigarettes… [and] there is a much clearer relationship between smoking and cancer than between violent abuse and lads’ magazines.”
Seven minutes of questions were initially designated by the UGM Chair, during which members of the floor focused primarily on issues of freedom of choice.
Students’ Union LGBT Officer, Scott MacDonald, suggested that this motion “will turn them [readers of the Sun and FHM] against the Union”, and asked “why couldn’t someone propose to ban the Economist, on the grounds that it perpetuates the capitalist system?” In response, Robinson offered, “I am a woman on campus, and I don’t want to see creepy men reading FHM”. Third year BA Geography undergraduate Tudor Jones asserted that “the Sun is the most read newspaper in the UK. If you ban it from campus, we’re still going to read it, in front of you, as the AU is doing here.” Robinson reiterated that this motion was “a boycott, not a censorship”, and that though students would still be able to purchase the publications elsewhere, “any attempts to combat sexism and inequality on campus will be meaningless” without the passing of this motion.
After a student was removed from the theatre for throwing a bundled-up newspaper at the stage, there were also several questions posed regarding the issue of sexist behaviour. Third year undergraduate Estelle Cooch, noting that a Facebook group about the motion was “filled with comments like ‘let’s ban militant lesbos from the SU’” thus proving that sexism and homophobia “clearly still exists in our society”, asked the opposers “how would you combat it [sexism] on campus?” Responding, Sam Tempest Keeping argued that though sexism and homophobia “are [not] acceptable per se … freedom of speech is the cornerstone on which our society is based. You cannot blanket ban across students” because such a decision would hinge on “opinion” and not fact.
After the question-and-answer period was extended for a further five minutes, a student questioned the link between pornographic imagery and sexual violence, calling it a “serious comment” and one allegedly made without adequate statistics to back it up. Other questions were asked, against a backdrop of continued wolf-whistling, sexist asides and a series of attempts by members of the audience to hijack the discussion with inappropriate comments. Much of the negative response to the proposers’ answers centred on Robinson and Kahlo’s assertions that images in the Sun and in FHM depicted “hardcore pornography”. On one occasion, the microphone had to be wrestled away from a student.
After questions had been drawn to a close, voting took place and the motion fell, causing significant dismay among the proposers. Two of the Union’s Sabbatical Officers, angered by the outcome of the vote, later encouraged discussion about the motion via their Facebook profiles and Twitter accounts. The proposers of the motion have since made complaints to the Students’ Union regarding the behaviour of members of the audience, resulting in an investigation that is still ongoing.
Related posts:
- Men's officer proposal rises out of Mr LSE motion ashes
- 'Vague' unity motion amended before passage
- Motion to let Othman study passed at UGM
- Our everyday language is inherently sexist
- School and Union call for calm on campus