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are spawned by the nature of the beast; an imitation of a political body which is dominated by men, who often hold outdated, patriarchal opinions and beliefs about women.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: 

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?