Connect with us

Student Life

Oxford needs a women’s college

Published

on


Naturally, I loathe to say that Cambridge does anything better than Oxford, but I can’t deny that there is one thing I will always respect them for: Newnham and Murray Edwards (and, up until 2021, Lucy Cavendish). 

In the 1970s, mixed colleges were the way forward. They embodied a progressive attitude. One of the main justifications for mixed colleges was to increase the number of female undergraduates at Oxford. As Florence Smith showed, the admission of women to Hertford, Brasenose, Jesus, St Catherine’s, and Wadham was complex – amidst the progressive ideology, a misogynistic and unequal reality remained. Crucially, the biggest consequence of men-only colleges admitting women in 1974 was that, only five years later, former women’s-only colleges St Anne’s and Lady Margaret Hall admitted men. By 2008, there was not a single women’s-only college left in Oxford.

Mixed colleges are a wonderful thing. Having been at an all-girls school for seven years, I don’t think I would have accepted an undergrad offer from a women’s-only college. We can all agree that it is healthy for men and women to socialise, and for women to understand and participate in environments which aren’t exclusively female. However, single-sex spaces, especially for women, and in particular women’s colleges, are important. Research has concluded that girls do better (academically) at single-sex schools. It would, therefore, be unsurprising for this to continue to be the case at a university level. I’m sure many female readers are able to relate to the experience of being spoken over by a male tute partner at least once in their time at university. 

Women’s colleges can also, crucially, provide funding to women. Despite women often outperforming men at an undergraduate level, academia in Western nations has a significant gender gap – particularly within STEM – and a significant barrier to academia is funding. Cambridge colleges like Newnham and Murray Edwards provide not only places for women, but also funding, awards, and prizes. For further study in History at Oxford, an MSt will cost you approximately £17,000, whilst a DPhil will cost you around £14,000 annually (roughly £42,000 – £56,000 for the full degree). Women’s colleges help to address this gap. 

Crucially, women’s colleges retain their feminist foundations. I believe that my own college (Somerville) is a progressive place, and I’d argue it has retained its values and principles better than any other former women’s college. Yet I have heard plenty of sexist ‘jokes’ in the college bar. Casual sexism is something almost every woman is forced to confront; a women’s-only college would give women a reprieve. Somerville is the only college to have had only female principals – something I was very aware could change when our principal stepped down in 2025. Female principals are often one of the best examples young women have for a woman in a position of clear authority, particularly in an institution like Oxford, which for so long was associated with only masculinity. Whilst I do not advocate for total feminist separatism, I believe that there is real value in women’s-only spaces. Having spoken to women who attended former women’s colleges in Oxford for my undergraduate thesis, the difference in atmosphere is almost palpable. Women’s-only colleges were often described as peaceful, empowering, calm places of learning and guidance. I love my college, and indeed I love Oxford, but I think that that atmosphere has faded. 

When Somerville went mixed (amongst great protest from students), former Principals Catherine Hughes and Daphne Park justified the change by arguing that they had always taught women to be feminists; now they were doing the same for men. If that was the goal, they failed. Men who identify as feminists, and men who fight for women’s rights exist within Oxford, as they do everywhere, but this is not because of any college environment. Women’s colleges were once a place in which women could learn to take on a male-dominated environment; though various environments have remained male-dominated, the safe space for women created by these colleges, a space in which women could exploit every and any opportunity, has been lost. 

Women’s colleges don’t appeal to everyone. When the first five colleges went mixed, they admitted 100 women. How many more applied? There was a real demand for a mixed-sex environment – rightfully so. There are real advantages to coeducation – and also to cohabitation between the sexes. There were plenty of women at LMH who were delighted about the arrival of men, and many went on to marry the men they met at college. But others missed out. There are plenty of reasons women might need – not just want – a women’s-only space. I know plenty of women who chose to attend London universities – or not attend university at all – because London universities would allow them to live at home while studying. Some women also preferred this because they did not want to live in mixed dorms with men on campus, due to their religious beliefs. Colleges in Oxford do try to be accommodating for the most part, but a mixed college will never be as good at providing spatial separation as a women’s college. 

Fundamentally, it’s not really about whether mixed or single sex colleges are better. It’s about having the ability to choose. Women applying to Cambridge can choose. Women applying to Oxford can’t. Perhaps instead of a new graduate college every five years, Oxford could reintroduce a women’s college. One women’s college would not do the University any harm, but it would be of colossal benefit to its students. 



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Student Life

May Morning – Cherwell

Published

on


Smudged mascara and the curling of coffee steam. Small yawns and the shuffling of boots. Tangled hair plaited by the same girl from first-year, a crumbly pastry shared with her, too. Heads resting on shoulders, tired eyes looking skyward for the song that is coming. Fresh, crisp air and butter-yellow sunlight you could reach out and taste. There is excited chatter of stories from the night before, looks shared. A hush falls. May morning. See what the world can do before sunrise.



Source link

Continue Reading

Student Life

Sunday – Cherwell

Published

on


That Sunday could arrive first-class,

Wrapped in tissue and stickers with minimalist logo.

Sent anonymously (from a fan?).

It will be a crisp, sunblushed Sunday.

The first in months without rain or

Export tariff.

Sunday, with speechless morning

and an afternoon

of step-counts exceeded.

Inside, there will be boutiques browsed,

with flat whites from 

an independent coffeehouse, where we know the owner.

We could unpackage this Sunday

Share it and save the tissue

For Christmas giftwrap.

We might duel over whether

we go to yours for the holiday,

Or mine, across the sea.

We might get workaday Mondays, Milky-white Tuesdays, 

dreary Wednesdays, Thursdays with dinner parties,

Two-for-one Fridays, and dancey Saturdays.

It hasn’t quite left the depot

Though,

And you won’t be in to answer the door.



Source link

Continue Reading

Student Life

Hail Agnes full of grace: ‘Hamnet’ and the perfect mother figure

Published

on


A couple of days ago, I saw an Instagram reel (in the Friends tab, no less) regarding Jessie Buckley’s recent Best Actress win at the 2026 Academy Awards. The reel was praising Buckley for the apparent embrace of her most important role as wife and mother, highlighting her talking adoringly of her months-old baby, addressing her husband and exclaiming “I want to have 20,000 more babies with you!” in her acceptance speech. The caption on the reel recalls Michelle Williams’ Best Actress acceptance speech at the Golden Globes in 2020, wherein she discussed how her abortion allowed her to advance her career, as if to say ‘look how far we’ve come!’ It is impossible not to be reminded of that meme, which has now been played for irony, depicting two clipart-style women with one holding a trophy and crying, “I won!”, while the other swaddles a baby and retorts, “No, you didn’t.” If not claiming that a successful career and familial bliss are mutually exclusive, it seems clear that within this narrative, one is being valued far over the other.

The discourse surrounding motherhood is a strange one. The cliché that the left’s weakness is its inability to reach a consensus certainly holds some truth, and the issue of reproductive rights is proof of it. For decades, feminists have oscillated between pro- and anti-natal stances, and the crackdown on access to abortion services in recent years has shifted people both ways along the axis. At the same time, the right has unfailingly tokenised the mother figure as a paragon of Biblical femininity, lamenting how she has been cheated and let down by those supposed women’s rights activists, whilst they themselves simultaneously strip her of her essential rights and prohibit her from taking on any other label. As a result of this dichotomy, depictions of motherhood in film occupy an equally strange space in the mediascape.

Buckley swept this year’s award season for her performance as Agnes in Hamnet, Chloé Zhao’s adaptation of the Maggie O’Farrell book of the same name. The film centres around Agnes (more commonly known as Anne Hathaway), a magical healer, and her romance with the then unknown town tutor William Shakespeare. The crux of the film comes when Agnes and William’s 11-year-old son, the titular Hamnet, passes away. The remainder of the runtime explores how each parent deals with the grief as it threatens to tear them apart, both from each other and their own senses of self. It seems unbelievable that even this – a historio-fictional account of Shakespeare that centres not him, but a woman in a relationship with him, which has led not to the hunky white-boy-of-the-month lead receiving accolades, but his relatively less-talked-about co-star – can be milked for ‘tradwife’ content. Yet it is not the tragedy of the plot or even Buckley’s vast success as a result of her performance (one that, by virtue of her gender, she could not have taken on in Shakespeare’s time) that people are ooh-ing and ahh-ing over. 

Whether by chance or by Freudian fate, I have ended up watching every recent blockbuster concerning motherhood (of which there have been, perhaps suspiciously, quite a few) with my mum. When we watched Lady Bird (2017), which consensus dictates is Greta Gerwig’s magnum opus, I remember both of us shifting awkwardly in our seats and sniffling as we lamented our failure to understand what all the fuss was about. I managed to get through most of Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) by myself before she wandered in right as the gorgeous final montage was playing on screen. It took her at least 15 minutes to stop pattering about her day and notice the tears streaming down my face. I hadn’t seen her in four months when we sat down to watch Hamnet together, one of the longest spans of time we’ve been apart, and I could anticipate the pain I would feel in my chest in roughly two hours before we even hit play. 

On the one hand, I sympathise with the kind of cognitive dissonance showcased in that reel about Jessie Buckley. I, too, want to see my beliefs platformed by individuals with influence, and I, too, want people with the power to do so to speak out for the betterment of society. It is maybe a simple matter of chance that I’ve escaped the logical fallacy of using Buckley as a defence for wanting women to return to their rightful places in the domestic sphere, though she is anything but exemplary of that in practice. But the pathos to which these movies appeal by depicting the complicated but ultimately incomparably rewarding relationship between a mother and her child, along with Buckley’s dedication of her award to the “beautiful chaos of a mother’s heart”, makes me momentarily wonder whether it is a necessary part of my journey through womanhood to experience that dynamic on the other side of it. It makes me question whether I am a worse feminist for not wanting it. 

I am my mother’s only child. She had already been in the workforce, earning a steady income for ten years before I was born. She was financially independent even before that – together, she and my father paid for their wedding by themselves, having saved up a small portion of the stipend they received as government scholars while doing their Master’s degrees here in the UK. In her career spanning three decades, she has achieved more success than most, if not all of the mothers in the films we’ve seen together. Though I am biased, I can make a strong argument for her doing a fine job at balancing her professional growth with her role as a mother. I am certainly a better person for having been raised by her, and I believe she would agree that our relationship is mutually beneficial. However, I think I would be doing her a disservice if I placed myself at the centre of all that makes her a valuable member of society. 
In the final scenes of Hamnet, Agnes attends the first performance of her husband William’s new play Hamlet at the Globe Theatre. The film conjectures that Shakespeare wrote his masterpiece as a way of processing and dealing with the grief of losing his son. The credits roll to the sound of Agnes’ laughter, as she is finally able to experience catharsis and let go. Her story is as much about loss as it is about overcoming, about reconciling the complexities of your identity before and after tragedy strikes. Ultimately, a mother is not nearly all that Agnes is. I bet Jessie Buckley, a woman who has been pigeonholed rather than appreciated for her multifariousness, would agree with me.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending