Students and protesters across the country rose up in arms this week to object to the possibility that the creation of new 'off-quota' university places might result in an unfair advantage for richer students. They were angered - and rightly so - by the implication that allowing privately funded extra places on courses at the UK’s leading academic institutions could allow some pupils to 'buy their way in'; creating an elitist two-tier system reminiscent of the old university - polytechnic divide.

As part of the national press coverage, current Cambridge University Student Union President Rahul Mansigani was widely quoted across several newspapers and media websites, including the BBC News site and his own CUSU website. He strongly opposed the scheme, declaring that “this University's admissions are based on the principle that we admit people solely on the basis of their ability, not their background; it simply cannot be the case that Daddy's money can buy you a place at this University.”

Yet amidst all the fuss and insistence upon fairness and equality in higher education, nobody seems to mind that Mansigani, representative of this University’s student body, was quoted across the national press using an archaic and completely sexist expression.

Now hold on. Before you leap to pen an indignant ‘comment’ berating the pedantic nit-picking of an over-zealous feminist, no doubt pointing out that Mansigani is a hard-working member of the University community whose words were in no way meant to be sexist or to cause offense, before you point out that this is a commonly used expression to which he likely didn’t even give a second thought. Just hold on.

This is in no way intended as a personal attack on Mansigani. Without doubt it is almost certainly the case that he didn’t intentionally mean to make a sexist comment; that he didn’t even consider the implied prejudice of the phrase. I’m sure he is actually a very nice man. But that is exactly the problem.

That somebody in Manisgani’s position of authority and responsibility can make such a slur without even pausing to consider its connotations is symptomatic of a much wider acceptance of low-level sexism in many areas of our society. Whilst words like 'gaylord'; a common insult during my primary school years, have now completely (and quite rightly) disappeared from the lexicon because of our acute awareness of their implied discrimination, we seem somehow much more ambivalent in our attitude towards sexist remarks.

It is almost as if we are so convinced that the feminist battle is over, so smugly sure of the sexual equality we live in, that protest against such minor aberrations has become redundant. Certainly, it has become uncool. A woman who complains that David Cameron should not tell a female MP to “calm down dear”, or fails to see the humour in a sexist gag is now suddenly labelled ‘uptight’; a ‘raging feminist’; or ‘unable to take a joke’. We are apparently so close to sexual equality that to complain at the minutiae has become pernickety and melodramatic. Frankly, it seems to merit downright disapproval.

But in reality the inequalities are still very real indeed. In a world where thousands of women across the globe have been motivated to march for their right to respect after a Canadian policeman suggested 'slutty' dressing might make a victim responsible for their own rape; where a shockingly disproportionate number of seats in Parliament and top business and city jobs are occupied by women; where a girl experiences catcalls and overt sexual comments every time she walks past a building site, the point is most certainly not moot.

It is precisely because we are made to feel prissy and over-sensitive if we complain about phrases like 'Daddy’s money' that these expressions have lingered in common cultural usage for so long. Precisely because we are told not to make a fuss, informed we ‘ought to take it as a compliment’ or labelled ‘neurotic’ if we stop to give the builders a piece of our minds that this amazingly common incidence of harassment remains so prevalent and so widely accepted.

But if somebody doesn’t stand up and make the point that these actions and expressions are sexist, dated and offensive, we will never succeed in removing them from the everyday consciousness of our society. And until we send the message that these residual traces of sexism are unacceptable, they will continue to play a part in shaping our cultural perceptions of gender roles and influencing the views and ideas of forthcoming generations.

And where better to begin this process than at one of the foremost, respected intellectual institutions in the modern world? So yes, at the risk of all the names you can throw at me, I was offended by the sexist connotations of Rahul Mansigani’s comments to the national press. I am aware that they were probably in no way ill-intentioned or callous, but I am nonetheless angered by the casual sexism they contain and the wider incidence of this issue that they represent. I hope he might think twice before he thoughtlessly uses an expression of received prejudice again. And if he does, well, we’ll be one step closer to equality.