2013-06-18T22:23:34-04:00 Louise Wilson http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=louise-wilson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Louise Wilson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2807466 2013-03-04T18:29:24-05:00 2013-05-04T05:12:01-04:00

Louise Wilson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-wilson/ made headlines this weekend over the treatment of two female debaters visiting the university from Edinburgh and Cambridge for the GUU Ancients Debating Championship. The two women, Rebecca Meredith and Marlena Valles, were victims of sexist heckling and misogynistic objectification from a small number of male GUU members.

Whilst this news may have shocked the majority of people, including the women themselves, I'm ashamed to say that I, and probably a fair few people here at Glasgow University, was not. It is one incident in a line of many that members of the GUU have been involved in over the years, with a minority of its members embodying everything that was unfair, regressive and unequal in society throughout much of the 20th century. Indeed, the 'lad' culture on which the GUU prides itself stems from the fact it was once a male-only Union and refused to admit women until 1980.

The misogyny witnessed at the GUU Ancients is only the most recent example of the sexist culture that continues at the GUU. Last November saw the hosting of the Last All Male Board dinner, an event which invites current board members and those male members who were on the board before the first female board member was elected. The event, though seemingly innocent, is just another excuse to remember and celebrate the Unions dark sexist past.

Then there's the 139 Club, so named after the 139 male members in 1980 who voted against allowing women to join the Union, despite mounting pressure from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act. Had the decision not passed, it may have resulted in the closure of the GUU - a consequence the 139 males who voted against would apparently have preferred. The decision to ban the meetings of the 139 Club within the GUU was only made in 2011, a staggering 31 years after the initial vote. Despite this ban on meetings on campus, I think it highly likely that these meeting carry on elsewhere, albeit privately, continuing to embed the gender inequalities.

It's not only women who are the victims of GUU backwardness. Glasgow alumnus Liam Fox, a prominent member of the British Conservative party, also revealed his homophobia in his days as a student. The Union refused to affiliate the "Gay Society" in 1982, leading to a protest against this decision. Fox, then a member of the SRC, agreed with the decision made by the GUU, stating: "I just don't want the gays flaunting it in my face, which is what they would do."

However, this is not say all members of the GUU are equally sexist, homophobic and generally against anyone who isn't a white middle-class male. I do not mean to tar all members with the same brush. Yet the fact that these other members, including many women, are willing to tolerate such behaviour and explain it away as 'lad' culture or 'banter' is simply unacceptable. The GUU has a murky past, perhaps no more so than any other institution, but the toleration of such misogyny essentially accepts it. This type of occurrence shouldn't be "par for the course" and shouldn't "be expected". It should be openly rejected, and those members of the GUU who were heckling the female debaters should be banned, or at least disciplined, by Union management. An example needs to be set. To get away from it's sexist past, the GUU and its members should actively seek to do so. The GUU has supposedly been changing and getting better in this respect for years - but when can we actually expect this change? When can we actually say it has gotten better?

Something needs to be done, and soon, or else Glasgow University risks losing a special part of its history. The behaviour of members will begin to alienate more and more students, leading to less and less profit and eventual decline. The Union may have it's problems, but I doubt many students - old, current or prospective - would actually celebrate the downfall of the GUU. I urge current Union management to seriously reconsider the behaviour of it's members and make attempts to forever rid of the sexism and misogyny exemplified this weekend.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2728969 2013-02-20T19:16:12-05:00 2013-04-22T05:12:01-04:00

Louise Wilson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-wilson/ Glasgow Guardian newspaper, this has given me plenty of opportunities to speak to students, politicians and other campaigners about the referendum, due to take place in Autumn 2014. But whilst researching information for some interviews, it suddenly struck me: the Better Together campaign isn't particularly engaging or persuasive.

In comparison, the Yes Scotland website is much better; it clearly sets out why people should vote 'Yes', what an Independent Scotland will mean for them and generally giving reasons (whether you agree with them or not being a different matter) as to why you, yes you, should show your support for the campaign. The Better Together website, on the other hand, does none of this. It simply states the voting 'No' doesn't mean you are against Scotland, or that you think Scottish people are incapable of running their own country, but just that an independent Scotland would simply not be as strong as a United Kingdom - and no explanation further than this.

When I think about it, I've yet to come across any real argument as to why people should vote 'No' come 2014. It seems to me as though every argument the Better Together campaign has put forward is simply to poke holes in what Yes Scotland say and do - but never setting out themselves why the Union is indeed better together. 'No' campaigns seem to be relying on the fact that people will automatically want to stick with the status quo, that citizens able to vote will automatically vote 'No' unless persuaded otherwise. This is simply not the case. What about trying to turn those 'Yes' votes into 'No', or at least trying to pull over support from those sitting on the fence?

Personally, upon first hearing that the referendum was going ahead I was skeptical about an independent Scotland - would it really be able to function? Could it afford to be independent? Would it really be better for the citizens of Scotland? At first, I was a 'No' vote. Now I'm not so sure. Having read up on the subject the 'Yes' campaign is giving me much more compelling reasons for me to give my vote to them. Better education and healthcare? Sure. Higher GDP? Fine with me. Evening out social inequalities? Yes please. Regardless of whether or not the arguments are valid, at least Yes Scotland are trying to be persuasive, more than can be said for Better Together.

So, let's look at the case Better Together is giving us. An independent Scotland would be uncertain, unstable and create barriers for business, but what is the evidence for this? The Yes campaign has at least backed their argument for higher GDP up with data - saving on defence, North Sea oil and continued membership within the EU which will keep markets open. Let's try another Better Together argument - an independent Scotland would be less secure; again, where is the evidence for this? Scotland would indeed spend less on defence than the UK, but it is a smaller country, and much of the savings come from getting rid of the Trident - a resource which we don't need and doesn't make us any more secure anyway.

And the final of the three main arguments given on 'the +ve case' page is that Scottish culture is only enriched by the Union - this point just baffles me. Scotland has it's own culture and a very strong one at that outside of the UK, and besides, removing the Union isn't cutting Scotland off entirely from the rest of the UK as this statement seems to suggest. The two nations will still share a border and a history after all.

What I would like to see over the next 18 months is for this debate to deepen. I'm currently sat on the fence, but when it comes to the referendum in 2014 I want to be able to cast my vote with some certainty as to what in fact I am voting for.

My vote may be a 'yes' or it may be a 'no', but either way when I make that decision I want to be certain that I'm making the right choice for me. I'd like to see each side become a real contender with each other, each side to give me real reasons why I should vote that way.

So go ahead, campaigners, I invite you to persuade me, and millions of others who are eligible to vote, why we should agree with you. Why should I vote 'yes' or 'no'? Why should I back your campaign and not the other? The Better Together campaign in particular needs to engage and persuade the nation, or risk losing the referendum. This campaign needs to seriously up its game if a 'No' vote is to succeed.

Click to view interviews with Blair Jenkins and Alistair Darling for Glasgow Guardian.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2057853 2012-11-02T19:00:00-04:00 2013-01-02T05:12:01-05:00

Louise Wilson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-wilson/
Now normally I'm not opposed to language change. I am an English student after all. But this is one change I cannot stomach. To me, the new definition of "trolling" is not trolling at all. It is cyber-bullying and causes unnecessary grief (as was the case with the Rest in Peace Billy Robson Facebook page). The two are entirely different; for this reason, I'd like to see the general public recognise that bullying and trolling are not one and the same.

Trolling is in fact an art form, and a favourite past time of those who frequent internet forums such as myself. It takes a certain amount of skill to create a troll post (skills I unfortunately haven't picked up). It must provoke some kind of response. It must be subtle enough that it isn't an obvious troll, but not so much that it is unrecognisable as a troll by the wiser members of the internet community. It must have an element of comedy within it. It must waste people's time. And most of all, it must not be malicious.

This may seem like a fairly non-issue, and perhaps it is. It probably is just me being a pedant. But every time I see "trolling" being used to refer to cyber-bullying, I get a little bit frustrated. Trolling is a bit of harmless fun. Bullying is not. A poster may say things they know to be wrong to get a response, to enjoy seeing people take what they have written seriously. It is quite common in many forums. The topics discussed may be emotive, it may get people angry, it may be a little controversial - but it has not been designed with malicious intent.

Trolling is an art form: a delicate balance between semi-serious posts and comical outcomes. Whether you like it or not, trolling is a major part of the internet community and has been for years. To lose trolling due to the mass media putting bullies and trolls under the same umbrella would be losing one of the many things that make the internet great. Some trolls are good, others terrible, some are obvious, others subtle - but at the end of the day isn't art the same?

Love or hate trolls though, you have to admit that it isn't bullying. It isn't to insult. It isn't to cause grief. I think it'd be a shame to lose the art-form of trolling purely due to people confusing the terms.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1987420 2012-10-19T11:21:09-04:00 2012-12-19T05:12:01-05:00

Louise Wilson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louise-wilson/
Reason #1 - Women's Rights

As any pro-choice argument goes, it should be a woman's own right to choose what happens to her body, the same as any man. If we don't have control over our own selves, how can we expect to have control over anything else? But this isn't simply the pro-choice/pro-life argument - not every politician would like to see abortion abolished, yet a lower limit would mean this right is impinged upon.

There are no medical reasons as to why any time less than 24 weeks would be better, unlike the situation in 1990 leading to the reduction from 28 weeks. Any line drawn between when it is legal and illegal to abort would be arbitrary. Reducing the limit is only reducing the time necessary for a woman to make a very difficult, potentially life-changing, decision. Nothing should stop a woman from being able to make that choice - it is a painful enough decision, without the added pressure of a shortened time-scale within which to make it.


Reason #2 - Timing

A reduction would mean the choice would have to be made in an incredibly short space of time. 24 weeks, or 6 months, is a reasonable time to deliberate this when thought about pragmatically.

Let's say a pregnancy is unexpected because a woman is using a contraceptive Pill, as much of the British population are (up to 70% of British women will have been on the Pill at some point in their life). In most guides that come with each prescription, they state that missing one period, assuming no Pill has been missed since her last period, does not necessarily mean she is pregnant. It is instead suggested she waits until she has missed two periods before her alarm bell starts ringing. That means a total of up to 8 weeks has been used without much thought been given to what would happen if she actually were pregnant. Include the time it takes for a test and between booking the appointment and having the procedure, and that's a fairly large chunk of time already gone.

This leaves up to 16 weeks left for her to make a decision. Just a matter of weeks is not enough to decide whether to be a mother or not. To give up your life to nurse a child you had not planned on, had not expected, had conceived against the odds (the Pill is over 99% effective) - a difficult decision to make from any perspective. Even those who think they know what they'd do in that situation would have hesitations.


Reason #3 - Dangers of Illegal Abortion

If the previous reasons have not persuaded you, then perhaps the potential dangers will. If a woman hasn't made her decision in time, that's it, she has to keep the baby, right? Wrong.

Let's look back through history. Did law ever stop abortion before? No. There are many instances of women breaking the law to get rid of an unwanted child. The consequences were often dire. Think Penny in Dirty Dancing, the doctor with a "dirty knife and a folding table". Think April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road, the attempt at aborting the child herself, after which she bled to death. Notable instances in literature that are no less true a representation of what could and did happen.

The problem with these illegal methods is that there is no way to regulate them. There would be no rules against how to do the procedure, no rules on who can perform it, and no rules on hygiene and cleanliness. No regulation means higher risk; many women could die as a result of a law change. Their desperate need to have an abortion would lead them down a dangerous road, one from which there is a chance they won't return.

-----

These are obviously fairly important issues that would need to be considered if legislation regarding abortion were ever to change. Medical reasons would provide the only good justification for reducing the limits of abortion; if this is the case, I'm all for a change in the law. But until this is proven, an arbitrary change could result in fewer rights, severe harm or even death - and this is simply not worth it.]]>