In Support of Sustainable Development Goal 5: Calling out sexism in MUN - Part 1
Guest article written by Eve Bradley

I feel comfortable saying that Model United Nations (MUN) has always been somewhat problematic. It's only after events at a recent conference that I’ve realised that very few people understand unequivocally why. For me, MUN’s issues are spawned by the nature of the beast; an imitation of a political body which is dominated by men, who often hold outdated, patriarchal opinions and beliefs about women. This will invariably cause sexism in practise. The UN is a Boys Club in which well over half of countries represented either legally, socially, or culturally discriminate against women. MUN, in my personal experience, is no different.
As a delegate, sexism is less noticeable. Slight
patriarchal biases influence behaviour, just like they do in everyday life. You
might notice your idea, which was previously dismissed, be taken more seriously
when repeated by a male delegate; maybe you’re passed over for a male delegate
to speak for a paper a group have written, when you know you would be better
suited. Very often, these microaggressions are not picked up on; maybe the
group just didn’t hear you properly, or maybe your male counterpart really is
better suited for the job of speaking for your paper than you are. It’s that
uncertainty that makes this kind of sexism so hard to detect or be sure about.
Whilst these are, in the grand scheme of things, minor micro-aggressions, when
repeated over time, they become a symptom of an attitude which is left
unchallenged on the circuit.
These differences in attitude and sexist influences
are way more evident, to me, when staffing a conference as a Chair, and in Crisis
committees. Maria Slobodina, an experienced Crisis staffer, wrote an article on
Gender Equality on the Crisis circuit, explaining how crisis had been “run by
men for men” for years, at the expense
of gender inclusivity, and how toxic masculine biases make Crisis somewhat
hostile to women as “both the real participants and the characters within
crisis storylines”. Whilst bringing up specific
cases and examples, she notes that:
“In the vast majority of cases, there is no conscious
desire to offend. Instead, there seems to be a system that has failed to adapt
to the changes of its demographic and the broader global movement for gender
equality. […] Although single instances of these behaviours may seem benign or
unintentional to some, when taken together they present quite an unfortunate
reality that we should want to change.”
On this, I have to agree. Both in GA and in Crisis, I
believe that men who intentionally or knowingly act in a manner which makes the
women around him uncomfortable are few and far between. This being said, ignorance
does not justify discrimination, and I hold very little patience for those who
have been called out and who continue with sexist behaviour, and for those who
should know better.
Recently, I staffed a conference
which had a Wellbeing service. For the entire weekend, an office was open with
a female Wellbeing officer present to hear any complaints or grievances bought
forwards by anyone at the conference, and provided a safe space for people to
bring complaints, worries or queries to. This was, in practise, an amazing resource
which I feel has been missing on the circuit, which was very well executed by
the conference. Over the weekend, I saw the policy be made into a joke; some
people felt that Wellbeing was overkill, took away from the “fun” of the
weekend, and overly policed all attendees in an effort to push “extreme
political correctness” on people. I would like it noted that as far as I could
tell, most of those who believed this were men; when speaking to my female
friends in private, we overarchingly agreed that Wellbeing was good practice
and should become standard. The problem here is that to an extent, my female
friends and I joined in with the jokes we heard about Wellbeing; somebody would
say something about our personal lives, or make a risqué joke, and another
would say “Wellbeing!”, to our amusement. Why would we mock something which we
all agreed protected us?
To my eyes, the MUN circuit often falls foul to the
use of humour to cover opinions and statements which should be deemed
problematic. The best example of this I can think of, is at another conference where
an award was given during the official closing ceremony to the Best Meme
created over the weekend. The meme itself was an edit of a meme created by and popularised
in Incel chat rooms. Incels (Involuntarily Celibates), are an online subculture
whose members believe that they have been unfairly denied sex by women because
they're unattractive or socially awkward. They exist for the most part online, supporting
each other in their beliefs of women as subordinates or possessions which they
feel they are entitled to, and sharing violent content and ideas with each
other. Most recently, terrorist attacks in Canada in 2018 and in the United
States in 2014 have been linked to the subculture.
When I found out the nature of the joke, I was
shocked, and made the assumption that those around me, and those who gave the
award, were unaware of the Incel connotations. However, I was wrong; the
overarchingly male secretariat of the conference knew where the joke had come
from, laughed about it, published it for those at the conference to see, and
then congratulated the content with an award. To me, that should have been a
direct breach of a Wellbeing service, had there been one; spreading Incel culture,
consciously or unconsciously, is not a joke. And again, when I informed my
friends, who all accepted this as deplorable, we sat and said nothing.
As I see it, silence seems to be a trend on the MUN
circuit; I’d like to bring forward another instance where I said nothing.
On the
MUN circuit, it’s easy to get close to people, spending an entire exhausting 3
or 4 days in close proximity, and to my eyes, there is nothing wrong with
making close friends and developing relationships with people you meet and
spend time with at conferences. The problem begins when female staffers are
repeatedly shamed and subjected to sexist ideals which take away from any of
their academic integrity, and reduce them to simply, “girl”.
The classic bro culture where men are applauded for
their sexual “conquests”, whilst women are shamed for the same behaviour is
alive and kicking in the MUN universe. For example, I chaired at a conference
in 2018, and designed a debate which I was extremely passionate about. The
debate was done extremely well by the delegates; having clocked a significant
amount of time on it throughout the term, I was extremely angry to hear how,
rather than remarking on my success, the only thing I heard from my peers was
how I had been too flirty with a friend. Over the weekend, this point was
further enhanced, when at the closing ceremony, instead of being commended for
my hard work, a joke was cracked at my expense, ridiculing me. The fact that
this comes here angers me; I should not have to ever justify my personal life
nor my choices. Yet, it’s important for me to bring this up here, because I
hear so many similar stories from friends on the circuit.
It’s important to
call out the blatant double standard. I feel completely sure that had I been
male, talk would not have focused on such matters but instead on congratulating
me for my dedication, such that my personal life would not have impeded on my
‘professional’ achievement. In this instance, just like other very similar
experiences my friends and I have had since, I chose to do nothing. I did not
speak out, and I did not bring it to any form of authority. I was subject to
direct slut shaming over the weekend, my academic integrity was repeatedly
belittled, and I said nothing.
Because of the nature of MUN, I hold those who
participate in it to a higher standard. It should be standard to expect
experienced MUN staffers, secretariat members and delegates to understand how
gender biases affect equity in the real UN and by extension, in MUN. It should
also be the norm to expect MUN-ers to be respectful and supportive of the idea
of equal opportunity. Personally, I expect any sexism in MUN to be condemned,
but overall, I feel that MUN often fails to reach that standard. MUN as a whole
should have no tolerance whatsoever for the kind of behaviour which supports or
allows gender biases to affect performances and recognition at conferences; we should
be better than that, because as the younger generation, we should be championing
change, not support or be indifferent towards a system which effectively keeps
women silent.