End of university themed parties such as 'Geeks and 'Sluts' and 'Rappers and Slappers

I keep hearing the argument that women have the choice to take part (and men too, but it's the women who are focused on) but I don't really think it's the case. You kind of have three options:
Go and take part (could result in you feeling disgusted at yourself etc.)
Go and don't take part (which in the situation of a sports club or whatever will probably lead to you being alienated and was part of the reason I quit the pool team)
Or don't go (which isn't fun, and can also lead to you being alienated).

By removing the genders from the two options given by the title (Angels and Devils was a Carnage theme last year wasn't it? That doesn't promote one gender being more 'sexed up' than the other) it promotes a proper choice where any woman or man can choose which of the two options they want instead of feeling like they're forced into what they're not comfortable with or alienated for not doing it.

And a lot of people are making the comment that it's only a few women that are bothered, well this doesn't affect the ones that aren't bothered. They can still fancy dress as they like and dress as 'hoes' or whatever, just it'll be called something that doesn't imply that it has to be the women that dress like that and makes the women who are complaining and uncomfortable happy.

Calling it a "lads culture" is pretty one sided. That said I don't think it would make a difference. Whoever is making this decision clearly is biased in one way or another.

People find the parties offensive, and there are lots of other themes available that won't offend people.

If it doesn't offend you, that's fine. It doesn't particularly offend me either. But it's not like having another theme would affect the enjoyment of you or me - but it may make it more enjoyable for somebody else. Would you really be that put out by having to dress as, I dunno, cops and robbers or something, rather than geeks and sluts?

Not one that defines you in a derogatory term as a sex object, though.

What do you think it implies? "It's one thing for private establishments to hold whatever parties they wish, BUT it's another thing when it's university endorsed." My point was that I think the NUS is right in distancing itself from such events, should people confuse them with endorsing such behaviour and language. Private establishments can do what they like.

I got turned away from a geeks and sluts party at uni for dressing as a geek. Just sayin'.

If it's a private event then which endorses an attitude you don't agree with then you have no right to barge in and request it be changed purely so you can be happy. That's like going to a child's play park and ordering it to be demolished to make way for a supermarket you like.

I agree on the option of choice but you're focusing upon the thematics of the costume parties as demeaning rather than encouraging people to have a choice to try the opposite option of wear, eg. a man going a slapper or a woman going as a geek.

I'm in two minds about that and I can see the reasoning behind it but I still think it's just an excuse for doublespeak.

No it wasn't, you said it yourself:

"It's one thing for private establishments to hold whatever parties they wish...."

Now what does that imply?

Why the sports team hate?

Well it presupposes that only men can be 'geeks', 'pimps' or 'rappers' and can't be sluts or hoes. You're looking at it from a solitary angle that only affects women. I agree that it can be construed as offensive and can demean women but since you're so inclined to a one sided perspective I'm afraid I'll have to agree to disagree, though coming from you I'm not so surprised since you don't give two ****s about how sexism affects men as well.

Why the sports team hate?

The gender division in these categories is obvious. If a man dresses as a slut or a hoe on one of these nights, he would be deliberately subverting these categories, and it is more a choice for him to do that. I don't believe many men would do this because most people would be bound by the gender categories set out so just as women feel bound to be sluts and hoes, men would feel bound to be geeks and pimps.

The 'pimps and hoes' category is also an offensive way of looking at sex workers and their abusers. It's laughing at a situation where many women are forced into prostitution and are kept by people who want to exploit them. It's then getting students to act out that power relation according to their gender as if it doesn't really happen to people.

Yes, many do. Local nightclubs also often have 'NUS' nights where you have to be a student to enter.

The study was an in-depth qualitative one so it is unlikely to be representative of the female student population. However, if it was a large scale quantitative study the data wouldn't have been as rich and as interesting as it is, so it's a trade off they had to made. Although 40 women isn't a lot, it is still enough to show what is going on inside universities, and I think most of us who go to/went to university recently will recognise the culture they are talking about.

That last paragraph is utterly ridiculous. Do you really think that is what people think? Or is it an excuse for the girls who want to, to dress in sexy clothes and an excuse for the lads to wear elaborate costumes or suits on a night out.

It's just a bit of fun from both sides and the students attending don't need moralising on their behalf.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

I wouldn't take part for that reason. I don't think many people care about sex workers and how they came to be in that situation, so they don't care if their costume is offensive about that particular group. However, I think it is an issue that needs drawing attention to, so I would question anyone who thought it was funny about why they were doing it.

The way I see student politics is making an tiny ideal society within the small community we have while at university. There are certain things that are banned at university that would never be banned in the outside world e.g. bottled water, Nestle products. It's a way of testing what we want from the world and how to make it achievable. If we take this view, it does not seem unreasonable to stop dressing up nights demeaning women and laughing at vulnerable groups. Women have to experience being objectified every day - I don't see why their university - which is supposed to be about providing the best opportunities for everyone - should add to that.