The voice-raising, finger-pointing, man-hating bitch. Such has long been the image conjured up by the term ‘feminist’. Perhaps she’s nit-picky—she complains at any chance she gets, from the chores she finds oppressive to the tweets she finds offensive. Or perhaps she’s rash, hating all men for the actions of some. That, however, is besides the point, for no matter what inconvenience the feminist has latched onto, it seems she cannot engage in any sort of activism with a level head. The supposed existence of the raging feminist makes it seem like all feminists have only one thing on their agenda: anger.
Anger: that righteous feeling that births nations, forges freedom, keeps society churning. It flourishes in the hand of man to protect us from danger and injustice. Masculine anger is a catalyst for change, painting those brave enough to wield it with praise and glory. Yet the case is different for women.
https://www.theoasislmh.com/blog/embracing-the-revolution-girl-style
Picking up a copy of Cherwell, The Oxford Student, or opening The Oxford Blue website precedes a tidal wave of banality, a suffocating fug of lunkheaded prose and repetitive, ‘safe’ articles. It rarely feels exciting.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. As local publications, they are obliged to cover some of the necessarily mundane goings-on of Oxford. What is beyond dispute is that our publications are filled with such headlines as ‘BRITISH CULTURE’S OBSESSION WITH ANDY MURRAY’S RETIREMENT’ (Cherwell), ‘CADBURIES DON’T CARE ABOUT VEGANS AND WE ARE ALL WORSE OFF FOR IT’ (Blue), and ‘RONALDO VS. MESSI, THE ULTIMATE FOOTBALL DEBATE’ (remarkably, this was in the ‘News’ section of The Oxford Student).
Taken individually, these are fluffy, benign articles with miniscule numbers of interested readers. Harmless. But they are swiftly dull in large quantities, and ultimately unsatisfying. They do not fulfil what I believe the role of the newspaper should be: To question, inform, provoke, debate and entertain. Performing that role requires the lively discussion of contested, controversial topics (never forget that a topic is usually controversial because it matters). This is not happening.
https://www.theoasislmh.com/blog/why-are-the-oxford-newspapers-so-dull
Why Socialism - By Eliott Plainview
It’s that time again—another narcissistic Oxford leftist is going to try to seduce you with all the utopian promises of Socialism that you never asked for. On the bright side, I’m not a PPEist. Irony aside, I think that infusing some clarity into the dialogue around socialism might be useful, and I get to turn the Oasis into my personal left-wing propaganda channel in the process.
So let’s start with the basics: what is socialism? The settled view is that socialism broadly corresponds to a political and economic theory seeking collective ownership of the means of production. Everything else is up for debate.
So what exactly does our definition entail? In my view it means (at least) two things: (i) selective decommodification, and (ii) cooperative corporate structures. Big scary words, I know, bear with me.
https://www.theoasislmh.com/blog/why-socialism-a-response-to-danial-hussains-capitalist-fever-dream
Introducing The Oasis. From LMH to LMH
