With last November’s moustaches and black and yellow signs, you’d be forgiven for thinking Movember at Glasgow University is a national holiday. The Glasgow University Sports Association (GUSA) follows the same ideas as the rest of the world: grow your facial hair during November to raise awareness and funds for men’s health issues, in particular prostate and testicular cancer and men’s mental health. However, it’s their welfare system that fails to deliver adequate mental health protections.
I would first like to make a distinction between the cancer research side of Movember and the mental health side. The commercialisation of cancer charity research is nothing new and growing facial hair is a perfectly harmless way to raise money. Movember raises a substantial amount of money, especially GUSA drives which often result in £4000-£5000 per (large) club.
However, Movember’s focus on mental health can sometimes lead to difficulty. Movember’s focus on men’s mental health often negates one thing: the effects of the patriarchy. Men’s mental health issues often arise from stereotypes of not being able to speak up, not being able to talk to your friends, men not being able to be emotional. These are all side effects of the patriarchy that privileges men and puts them in positions of power thereby blocking them from “feminine” emotional weakness.
Movember as a campaign feels like it singularises men’s mental health, whilst ignoring the systematic problems that cause these mental health behaviours. Its emphasis on awareness over systematic change allows for a Movember aesthetic to be felt without addressing the deep-rooted cause for men to feel this way.
Whilst men are four times more likely to die by suicide, women attempt suicide at a far higher rate than men, and yet Movember takes male suffering and elevates it to a higher standard, ignoring how the patriarchy affects all of us negatively. On a university level, this singular focus seems like a slap in the face as sexual assault, harassment, and misogyny are becoming an endemic.
GUSA’s drive similarly fails to address systematic issues – as seen in the welfare reporting system. Nearly three years after the Ross Report and its recommendations for professionals to handle welfare complaints, and not students, in its most serial offender (GUSA), have not been implemented.
GUSA welfare reporting systems usually work like this: a student will report a welfare issue to a member of a committee who passes it on to their welfare lead, which then is discussed with the captain, and finally, if they decide it’s serious enough, it will be elevated to GUSA. If the reporter wants, the committee can involve the University Welfare Referees in the interim. The issue is that it’s all student-led. It relies on the victim having the courage to report an issue to a committee made of their peers, it relies on untrained students deciding on what they deem important. It relies on a club captain that is sympathetic to issues. It relies on a council who cares about students. On a GUSA president that is compassionate. This is often not the case.
It is now four years since the sexual assault claims against former president Paddy Everingham, allegations which did not affect his term. Even whilst under investigation, and one female President since, it’s hard to reckon with the legacy of misogyny in GUSA and the student led welfare system.
Why does GUSA still accept and promote that these issues should be handled by untrained unpaid students? That welfare issues can be dealt “in-house” with no formal procedures? If everything is student led, then surely welfare reports come down to popularity competitions between the accused and the accuser?
In the 2022/23 academic year, Beyond Equality initiatives were offered to all four male GUSA clubs, men’s football, rugby, basketball and hockey, to facilitate conversations around behaviour, mental health, drinking culture and hook up culture. Despite this, all four clubs have minimal posts regarding welfare complaints and how the procedure works.
Glasgow University Football’s Instagram page even has an old misogynistic relic of “who do you want to least date your daughter”; i.e.. Who on the team treats women the worst (who we don’t hold to account). Don’t worry though – you can still raise money for him in Movember!
I also wonder if men’s mental health comes into account during the hazing rituals of the Rugby club, conveniently in the second week of Freshers’, and if rumours can be believed, making the first year’s crawl, drink a concoction of cat food, booze and bodily substances whilst being hurled abuse. I would argue the link between these behaviours, and the generally accepted casual rape culture of a Sport Wednesday and poor mental health are not discussed at all.
GUSA’s lack of concern regarding these issues, and the effects on both men and women in sports clubs that are regularly let down by the welfare system, feels stark compared to their support for Movember. If they were serious about helping men, they should instead turn the gaze inwards and facilitate systemic reform that punishes abusers and protects the mental health of those under its care.
GUSA told Hillhead Review: “While we can’t comment on individual students, it’s important to state that the incidents and comments are of a historic nature that in no way reflect the current effectiveness of GUSA welfare policies and processes. GUSA takes allegations of all forms of harassment very seriously, and we make sure that all reports are fully investigated.
“In recent years we have worked with the University to improve reporting, as well as the help and support we offer to survivors. Any report that GUSA receives of sexual or criminal misconduct is now passed onto and dealt with by the University’s Student Conduct team directly. We continue to try and find ways to further improve what we do, to help make everyone safe.”
Leave a Reply