The UWO Gazette's "Spoof" Issue

I think the Gazette wants to provoke a loud and vociferous response to this, so, for what it's worth, I would be disinclined to give them what they want.

They are just going to hide behind satirical licence anyway.

The issue of recomending the rape of an identifiable person seems to this unlearned in law person as a complaint for the Crown Attorney to hear, or failing that, civil proceedings.

I think the better idea is to pick up a copy of the Gazette, and take carefull note of who advertised in them. Then I'd arrange quiet meetings and boycotts of those businesses.

In fact, if someone has a copy of the Gazette, why not let us know who advertised in that issue?

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

Outrageous.

Well, in that case, there's also a time and a place for direct action against the Gazette, isn't there?

Eggs and spray paint, anyone?

I was thinking rocks and bricks, myself.

Fuckwad asshats.

Asking an aggressive question and then asking someone to leave - bad form.

The writer, whoever he is, is portraying women as savages in his article. Spraypainting the office would be like snapping at someone who accuses you of having a bad temper.

I see the offensiveness and I agree. That being said, causing pain for people who had nothing to do with this (next year's incoming editorial board who would have to foot the clean-up bill) is rather counterproductive. Throwing bricks and eggs would likely only affect next year's editorial board and make the brickthrowers look bad. All the writer and the outgoing editorial board would get is a brief moment of fear, then some good laughs, and then a sense of vindicated self-righteousness.

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

'Spoof' at Western is hate, not satire

---

Now published at [url=http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=8ffb2658edd6c40e3b850c... rabble.ca[/url].

I'll have more reaction a bit later.

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Sharon ]

quote:

---

Asking an aggressive question and then asking someone to leave - bad form.

---

Bad form? Seriously, you need to stay away from this forum. Your an idiot. Plain and simple. I didn't ask an agressive question, I was just shocked at your stupidity. Nothing like some you punk guy telling us feminists what we should really do and then telling us we should be nicer and less agressive at that. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

UWO does not really have a journalism department. There is a Media, Information and technoculture program, but the people who write for the gazette are self-selecting, and it is fairly cliquey. It's not run by any of the university's departments though. Rather it is run by a clique of students from a range of academic disciplines.

As you can see from the article on rabble's front page, there have been progressive people who have tried to get involved, but the editors choose not to publish the articles. Editors are elected annually by those who have written usually 3 or 4 articles which have been published, so if you keep someone from publishing, then you never have to deal with them voting or running for editor.

I know the masthead is changing this year but sexist and misogynist articles and cartoons have been a major problem at UWO for several years, including derogatory ads on the "Westernizer" student dayplanner that the student union publishes. Since this year's group of writers elected next year's editors, there is no reason to believe things are going to change overnight. However, a big campaign might convince the incoming editors to reconsider what they publish.

There needs to be a systemic response. The student union that collects the Gazette levy and the Gazette itself need to have equity policies in place, that require the paper not to publish discriminatory materials. They proably need to require equity training for incoming student union executives and board members as well as the paper's editorial board, not as punishment, but as a way to foster a culture of inclusion. They might even benefit from an advisory board that includes reps from the university's faculty in the media program. Again this is a student paper and I don't think we want the university to take away all their autonomy, but there need to be institutional checks and balances put in place.

Writing to the London Free Press, the student union (USC), the university ombudsperson...all of this would put pressure on the paper.

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: pencil-skirt ]

University of Western Rapists Ontario.

That's the meme that should be spread around the internet about UWO until the administration of the university takes notice.

"Hey, what university did you apply to?"
"Well, let's see, I applied to U of T, U of Windsor, UWO..."
"Oh, you applied to the University of Western Rapists Ontario?"
"The wha--?"

Yeah.

[ 08 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I've had experience with several student papers in my day and have found that despite the changeover of editorial boards the old train the new and paper's often stay editorially similar.

When I was at Dawson College the Plant was uniformly libelous and run as an attack dog for the administration to the detriment of students. It still is.

The Link at Concordia on the other hand has been hailed as the best student paper in Canada for years despite being constantly attacked by the right wing as a scandalous opinion rag.

Editorial culture remains, which is why making a huge fuss over this disgusting attack journalism is so important.

The editors may be moving on but I'll bet several of the writers of this trash have been elected to replace them for next year.

Well, we did a version of that, with myself covered in all the derogatory words used in the issue, and my face done up as if I'd been beaten to make the link between these words and the violence they are often used to justify.

Actually got a fairly good response, with roughly 400 signatories to petition the administration will be receiving by hand this afternoon.

I don't think threatening to remove the student levy which funds the campus paper is the best tactic. Students want a campus newspaper, that is student run, not always censored by administrators. Such censorship would remove the ability of students to criticize and debate things that administrators do.

What students need is for the Gazette and the USC to adopt policies to prevent this from ever happening again. The editor needs to make a retraction and apology. There should be equity policies and anti-oppression policies written into the constitution of these groups, and all the editors should have to have equity training, and sign pledges on these issues. Of course they will still have the right to write stories critical of feminism or any other progressive ideology, but they cannot incite hatred or promote rape, especially under the auspices of comedy.

I think all letters addressed to the university administrators should call for them to pressure the Gazette and the USC to do these things, as opposed to asking for the university to TAKE OVER the paper or the student union.

Unfortunatly such portrayl of women has come up in student press issues in the very recent past. I am not sure of any other instinces that directly involved rape, but these are examples of severely objectifying female students. This doesn't even shed light on the racist things that have been published.

Here are just a few examples:

In 2003, a student newspaper was forced to apologize for running an ad that featured scantily clad women and the words "get me drunk and see what happens." Though this was an advertisement, I would argue that the editorial board has an obligation to look beyond the profit that they will make by publishing such promotion, and consider the greater good for the campus community. The school's Women's Resource Centre organized a written protest, but I am unsure of the results of this.

In 2002, the Pillar, a paper run by engineering students at the University of New Brunswick was shut down for suggesting that the school run wet t-shirt contests to encourage enrollment into the program. This again was part of a "spoof" issue, which spoke candidly of wet t-shirt contests and mud wrestling.

In 2004, an editorial at the University of Regina in the Carillon was supposed to be a joke, but caused dozens of students to protest. In an article called "To Skeet, or not to Skeet," two male students discussed the pros and cons of picking up "unattractive women" at the bar. They described what they defined as "skeets" to have sexually transmitted diseases and "who will go home with anyone, or anything, they can get their grubby little hands on." It was reported that the staff would go on to recieve training in sexual harrassment and ethics, but I'm not sure if this was actually carried out.

Spoof issues have caused contoversy since the 1950s, when staff members at the Varsity at UofT were forced to resign for what was considered inappropriate material for the time.

awesome, thanks Joshua

Here is more of the excerpt already quoted above. It gets progressively worse. It's avalailable in full [url=http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=Opinions&articleID=1336&mo.... [/url]

quote:

---

Were we homophobic when publishing a story documenting different students’ sexual orientations and the stigmas they face in the university environment (Feb. 14, 2007)? Were we racist when covering Black History Month (Feb. 9, 2007)? Did we impede religious freedom when reporting on Islam Awareness Day (Feb. 7, 2007)? Were we sexist when tackling female professors’ struggles to shatter the glass ceiling (March 8, 2007)?

As is often the case in this extremely PC era, there’s a knee-jerk reaction to the first sign of something “negative.” It doesn’t matter how out of context the supposedly detrimental pieces are from the paper’s mission; it’s easier to strike quickly while charged with emotion than to thoughtfully consider the circumstances. Who cares what The Gazette publishes in 99 of its issues — it’s the one that looks like it should be sold in grocery store checkout lines that really matters, right?

Of course, even if our work is entirely in jest, critics say, we’re promoting a negative message for Western to blindly gobble up. But please don’t insult our readers’ intelligence.

---

It goes on to culminate with:

quote:

---

Or maybe it’s just that most of Western’s religions, women, homosexuals, babies, god-like dictators, cyclists, student politicians, police, librarians, help groups, administration, squirrels, geese and zombies know a joke when they see one.

---