women's officer - should it be "equality officer"?

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

If there were an equality officer, it would only have one vote. Under the current system post-grads, women and the disabled get a vote each, under one single equality officer they wouldnt.
Also merging these posts would create too big a work load for any on part-timer, and I for one dont want another sabbat office.

Edit: This is actually wrong. The disabilities officer doesnt have a vote.

tintinr35

Apathy, apathy I say!

how does he/she manage in other colleges

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

are we keeping up with the jones now?
Each one of the officers puts in a lot of time and effort at present. There time sheets are available for your scutiny if you wish. I dont feel it would be fair to ask more of any of them without paying them. And I dont want to pay for another sabbat office.

For anyone interested The Union Executive consists of:
(i) The Sabbatical Officers,
(ii) The Finance Officer,
(iii) The Postgraduate and Evening Students Officer,
(iv) The Irish Language Officer,
(v) The Women’s Officer,
(vi) The Communications and I.T. Officer,
(vii) The Union Secretary. (non-voting)
(viii) Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Officer. (non-voting)
(ix) The Disabilities Rights Officer. (non-voting)
(x) The International Students Officer. (non-voting)

TBH I think the Irish language officer should be non-voting, apparently every sabbat is líofa and a major enthusiast anyway.

arbeitsscheuer

Yes, equality officer would be better

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

TBH I think the Irish language officer should be non-voting, apparently every sabbat is líofa and a major enthusiast anyway.

Agreed, and the Disabilities Officer, imo, should be a voting position.

Actually I agreed with most of ur post on the previous page as well.
Damn... me agreeing with Kaptain_Redeye... The apocalypse must be nigh!

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

Im actually a level headed and agreeable person, when I want to be

So seb, would you like to do the honours and find the IRA in this thread, bonus points if you dont use SF

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

SebtheBum wrote:

Agreed, and the Disabilities Officer, imo, should be a voting position.

Why would the disabled get more votes?

tintinr35

Apathy, apathy I say!

not the disabled u ass its the diability officer!

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

tintinr35 wrote:

not the disabled u ass its the diability officer!

Whots the difference. They represent the same vested interest

tintinr35

Apathy, apathy I say!

more than likely i would imagine that seb meant this officer in particular should get to vote as it is one of the more important exec positions

Could be wrong tho!!

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

tintinr35, the disabilites officer is the elected representative of the disabled members of the student body. Think his name is Viv. Cant remember. By giving this officer a vote, you would be in fact give disabled students more votes. So, firespinner wasnt bing an ass or stupid.

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

tintinr35, the disabilites officer is the elected representative of the disabled members of the student body. Think his name is Viv. Cant remember. By giving this officer a vote, you would be in fact give disabled students more votes. So, firespinner wasnt bing an ass or stupid.

Thank you

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

Viv is elected by Council. This might give the idea that he was elected by the disabled members, which he isn't. Just clearing this up.

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

who elects womens officer and post grad officer?

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

Women's Officer is directly elected by the entire Union membership in the Exec elections (second week back in the next term) alongside Irish Language, Finance and Comm & IT Officers. Postgrad is advertised over the Summer months, I think, or possibly in the first few weeks back, and Postgrad students vote.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

if only postgrads vote for the postgrad officer then surely only women should be allowed vote for the womens officer-since its OUR intrests there vesting in anyway?Why do males get to vote for the womens officer??

An Bradán Feasa

Apathy, apathy I say!

It's the same as any other position (bar Postgrad Officer) - men can vote for Women's Officer, non-Irish speakers vote for Irish Officer, students on council without a disability vote for the Disability Rights Officer, students on council of the heterosexual persuasion vote for the LGBRO, etc.

I know it's not a perfect system, but if we were to divide all people into constituencies based on their sexuality, gender, disability, language etc, it'd be more trouble than it was worth!

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

An Brad&#225 wrote: »

It's the same as any other position (bar Postgrad Officer) - men can vote for Women's Officer, non-Irish speakers vote for Irish Officer, students on council without a disability vote for the Disability Rights Officer, students on council of the heterosexual persuasion vote for the LGBRO, etc.

I know it's not a perfect system, but if we were to divide all people into constituencies based on their sexuality, gender, disability, language etc, it'd be more trouble than it was worth!

I know what your saying but really arent holding these elections more trouble than there worth.Id prefer to have no womens officer than one that was elected by mainly guys and the fact is that as evey one keeps saying here the womens officer is there to represent us women.Now lets say that of the two girls running in this election that 600 people vote for Carol Anne and 200 vote for Linda,but of the 600 that voted for Carol Anne 500 of them were guys,then thisnt isnt an officer representing women its misrepresenting women.
I think as a non disabled and non Irish speaker I have absolutely no right to say who I think would be best to represnt the disabled and Irish speaking students in belfield.

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

Id prefer to have no womens officer than one that was elected by mainly guys

You heard it here first -- says alot for the importance of the position! ¬_¬ :cool:

An Bradán Feasa

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

I know what your saying but really arent holding these elections more trouble than there worth.Id prefer to have no womens officer than one that was elected by mainly guys and the fact is that as evey one keeps saying here the womens officer is there to represent us women.Now lets say that of the two girls running in this election that 600 people vote for Carol Anne and 200 vote for Linda,but of the 600 that voted for Carol Anne 500 of them were guys,then thisnt isnt an officer representing women its misrepresenting women.
I think as a non disabled and non Irish speaker I have absolutely no right to say who I think would be best to represnt the disabled and Irish speaking students in belfield.

It would be next to impossible to get people to register their language, sexuality or whatever for the purposes of electing people to the Union to represent them. The same principle applies to the Women's Officer elections, even though it is a lot easier to tell whether someone is male or female.

On the issue of men not being allowed to vote for a women's officer, I'd have to disagree. The Women's Officer holds a vote on the Executive and a vote on Council. Everyone should have a say on who gets elected - men, women, and those who do not conform to one specific gender.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

An Brad&#225 wrote: »

It would be next to impossible to get people to register their language, sexuality or whatever for the purposes of electing people to the Union to represent them. The same principle applies to the Women's Officer elections, even though it is a lot easier to tell whether someone is male or female.

On the issue of men not being allowed to vote for a women's officer, I'd have to disagree. The Women's Officer holds a vote on the Executive and a vote on Council. Everyone should have a say on who gets elected - men, women, and those who do not conform to one specific gender.

yeah but she's elected onto council to vote on behalf of us females for a better union and college for us women.As everyone has said here the point of the womens officer is to be a voice and representative for us women on council but if she is getting voted in by men then how is she OUR voice within the union.

I wish this position was just scrapped.I can see why a disability officer is needed.There wants and needs should be well represented on campus by the union.But us females students needs in Belfield are exactly the same as males needs,we dont need anymore help/protection/whatever from the union than the males do on campus.The welfare office can organise a womens health week cos of course health issues would diffrentiate.Singling out our sex for their own position just makes us seem like females need more help and they dont!!This position makes women look like they need more care and attention that guys and hence is further causing the gender inequality in our society.

An Bradán Feasa

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

yeah but she's elected onto council to vote on behalf of us females for a better union and college for us women.As everyone has said here the point of the womens officer is to be a voice and representative for us women on council but if she is getting voted in by men then how is she OUR voice within the union.

I wish this position was just scrapped.I can see why a disability officer is needed.There wants and needs should be well represented on campus by the union.But us females students needs in Belfield are exactly the same as males needs,we dont need anymore help/protection/whatever from the union than the males do on campus.The welfare office can organise a womens health week cos of course health issues would diffrentiate.Singling out our sex for their own position just makes us seem like females need more help and they dont!!This position makes women look like they need more care and attention that guys and hence is further causing the gender inequality in our society.

I agree with your second paragraph totally, but disagree with your first. When a Women's Officer uses their vote on the Exec or Council, it's not always a women's issue they're voting on, most motions that go through council aren't specifically women's issues. Therefore, I, as a man, have a right to vote for someone who's officership gives them voting rights on Exec and Council.

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

but its not suppose to be the voice of women on womens issues, its supposed to be the voice of women, so why as a man should you be able to control the voice of women?

An Bradán Feasa

Apathy, apathy I say!

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

but its not suppose to be the voice of women on womens issues, its supposed to be the voice of women, so why as a man should you be able to control the voice of women?

Your question implies that, as a man, I would be controlling the voice of women. This simply is not true. For the record, I would never vote for a man for women's officer. Also, 53% of the college population are female, i.e. more female voters.

And anyway, I should have a vote when it comes to Women's Officer elections, because as I have already stated, they have a vote on exec and council, therefore I should have some say on who get's this position, and subsequently, who gets the voting rights that come with it.

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

but its not suppose to be the voice of women on womens issues, its supposed to be the voice of women, so why as a man should you be able to control the voice of women?

Unless you also create a men's officer, it would be unfair.

Blush_01

Apathy, apathy I say!

*Go Panda!*

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

but its not suppose to be the voice of women on womens issues, its supposed to be the voice of women, so why as a man should you be able to control the voice of women?

Kap, the problem there is that having a voting women's officer implies that all other voting council members are men's officers. He's obviously not trying to control the voice of women - he'd have a pretty tough battle if he single-handedly tried it. We don't need a "poor little women, they need extra help because they've got a uterus" attitude dressed up as support. Biases work both ways these days. If there's a women's officer, why are there not also men's and gender non-conformist's officers too, or an officer who deals with gender equality and gender related issues - that is the point here, as far as I can see it. I don't think the perpetuation of a patronising, token gesture voice is anything to be proud of. I also don't think that having a gender equality officer instead of a women's officer is a stretch. The officer would simply deal with the women's officer issues, men's issues (which, at the moment, are either considered to be everything barr those covered by the women's office[which is ridiculous and unsustainable in any forum], or just men's health [which takes up one 24th of the academic year in that case]) and gender non-specific equality issues. Nobody's asking for a second Welfare officer. Just a bit of real equality.

HappyCrackHead

This argument is idiotic for many reasons already elluded to.

Women's officer stays as long as we still live in a patriarchy.

Men and women both should be able to vote for anyone running for office in the Union.

A gender equality officer would be acceptable.

James Carroll SU President, allegedly, is gonna table a motion for a referendum to remove the position of women's officer.

With all the important positions soon to be occupied by men, ents is still up for grabs and honestly doesnt count, then removing the women's officer is dangerous, another sign to those of you not paying attention that the right wing doesnt care about students.

IF the welfare officer actually DID their jobs then it wouldnt be neccessary, but for some reason people have a knack of electing the worst people for all the sabbatical positions.

And the women out there who are calling for the dissolution of the women's officer position should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm a man and i'm ashamed of you.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

HappyCrackHead wrote:

This argument is idiotic for many reasons already elluded to.


IF the welfare officer actually DID their jobs then it wouldnt be neccessary, but for some reason people have a knack of electing the worst people for all the sabbatical positions.

And the women out there who are calling for the dissolution of the women's officer position should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm a man and i'm ashamed of you.

Well Im a women and not ashamed to say I am ashamed of this position on our union (uhh does that make sense? too many ashameds:) )
Isnt it funny how its only the men on these boards that are enthusiastic and passionate about the position of womens officer.
The welfare office always do a great job when it comes to men's health week.Actually since ive been in college I cant for the life of me remember any decent womens health information or awarness.If the welfare office was soley in charge of a womens health week it would be run much more effectively because of course the welfare office is fully equipipped and trained to run informative weeks.The fact that the welfare officer is a man is neither here nor there-Are you saying that when Im a doctor I wont be able to advise my male patients only my female ones?

I hope that this Jim Carroll motion gets passed even though with the people we have on council I just cant see this happening

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

HappyCrackHead wrote:

This argument is idiotic for many reasons already elluded to.

alluded. I know its pathetic to correct someone's spelling but i nearly put my forehead through the screen.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

Women's officer stays as long as we still live in a patriarchy.

Women have vote. Women use vote. Women vote for favorite candidate. Favorite candidate has a penis. Ergo take away the vote they are using it wrong.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

With all the important positions soon to be occupied by men, ents is still up for grabs and honestly doesnt count, then removing the women's officer is dangerous, another sign to those of you not paying attention that the right wing doesnt care about students.

The right wing considers women equal and does not believe that gender sums a person up, or automatically means that they are at loggerheads with people of the other gender. Allowing women to stand on they're own when they outnumber men is not regressive or right-wing its just right.

HappyCrackHead wrote:

IF the welfare officer actually DID their jobs then it wouldnt be neccessary, but for some reason people have a knack of electing the worst people for all the sabbatical positions.

You really don't like it when people use their vote do you?

HappyCrackHead wrote:

And the women out there who are calling for the dissolution of the women's officer position should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm a man and i'm ashamed of you.

I think they know more about being women then we do.




Peachy, I know I said I wouldn't do left vs right anymore but it was brought up.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

Well all I know is that as a women I will not be voting for any womens officer in next weeks elections,so I hope all you blokes-happycrackhead,kaptainredeye,darragh etc pick someone who you think is suitable!

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

Well all I know is that as a women I will not be voting for any womens officer in next weeks elections,so I hope all you blokes-happycrackhead,kaptainredeye,darragh etc pick someone who you think is suitable!