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

boneless

Yes, equality officer would be better

pretty*monster wrote:

Here's the proposed new constitution http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1067&condense_comments=false#comment7390


There used to be a link to the old constitution on ucdsu.net, but I haven't been able to find it since they upgraded the site...

If you can't find it it must never have existed...

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Luckily I'm such a hack I have a hard copy of it!

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Red Alert wrote:

i particularly do not like paying the women's officer's wages.

... you are of course aware that the women's officer is part time and unpaid and always has been :rolleyes:

boneless

Yes, equality officer would be better

I had a similar experience with a change in the standing orders of a union branch a few years back. Thankfully I'm also one of those types that hoards documents; you just never know when they come in useful!!

By the way, in the above case we had to go legal against our branch committee and union HQ!! We won too!! Sometimes a pre-emptive legal challenge is the best method...

Chinafoot

panda100 wrote:

Dont bother firespineer your only wasting your time replying to him.

Unnecessary to say the least.

Firespinner, if you think a poster is a "shill" then I suggest you use the report post button. Oh and generally a shill refers to someone who makes money from promoting a product. If this poster is involved in the "no" campaign then I'm sure he will say as much. He has said he isn't but that he will probably end up helping out. Why shouldn't he post here about whats happening? The constitutional changes are important to everyone that will still be in the college next year.

To be honest I think it's very important that the students are given the information on the changes to the constitution *before* the voting happens. This doesn't seem to be happening and I have told HappyCrackHead that he should start a new thread on the matter.

These changes are important with regard to Women's Officer. There are two girls running at the moment and from what I can make out (someone correct me if i'm wrong here) but if the changes to the constitution are passed then whoever wins the election for WO will become gender equality officer. However they will have been elected to that position purely on the basis of their policies for women.

To me that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Jonny Arson

peachypants wrote:

These changes are important with regard to Women's Officer. There are two girls running at the moment and from what I can make out (someone correct me if i'm wrong here) but if the changes to the constitution are passed then whoever wins the election for WO will become gender equality officer. However they will have been elected to that position purely on the basis of their policies for women.

To me that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Nail. On. Head.

mad lad

Yes, equality officer would be better

it might not have come across but the aim of the article wasn't to debate changing the womens officer to a gender equality officer it was to address the wider issue of a culture within ucd.

I can't see what positive changes on a ground level will come from the referendum. Talking about the referendum and not the issues is probably a waste of time considering its unconstitutional

Chinafoot

mad lad wrote:

it might not have come across but the aim of the article wasn't to debate changing the womens officer to a gender equality officer it was to address the wider issue of a culture within ucd.

I agree with what you are saying. The issue at hand however is "Women's officer - should it be equality officer?" hence my post.

These proposed changes to the constitution are important in the area of WO though.

The_Minister

Apathy, apathy I say!

peachypants wrote:

Firespinner, if you think a poster is a "shill" then I suggest you use the report post button. Oh and generally a shill refers to someone who makes money from promoting a product. If this poster is involved in the "no" campaign then I'm sure he will say as much. He has said he isn't but that he will probably end up helping out. Why shouldn't he post here about whats happening? The constitutional changes are important to everyone that will still be in the college next year.
.

I was unaware of the financial nessecity to be a shill. I thought it was someone whose only reason for being on boards was to push one issue and pretend to be merely "giving their viewpoint". His first ever post was well-written and well-thought out and well-researched. Think Peachy! His first post! Even the timing is too convienient.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Firespinner wrote:

I was unaware of the financial nessecity to be a shill. I thought it was someone whose only reason for being on boards was to push one issue and pretend to be merely "giving their viewpoint". His first ever post was well-written and well-thought out and well-researched. Think Peachy! His first post! Even the timing is too convienient.

Mmm, heaven forbid we had well written, well-thought out posts on this forum, might put us all to shame...

Stabshauptmann

Yes, equality officer would be better

panda100 wrote:

Dont bother firespineer your only wasting your time replying to him.

I am panda100, your God. I know everything. That is all.

mad lad's posts are structured, detailed and referenced.
Firespinner has posted a few sarcastic one liners.

Are you dismissing someones posts merly because they are new?

Red Alert

Apathy, apathy I say!

well she has use of an office and whatnot - so i am paying for her.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Red Alert wrote:

well she has use of an office and whatnot - so i am paying for her.

She has the use of a tiny shared (shared between all the officers and anyone on union buisiness who needs the space) office. The only other money she has access to is the funds to run breast cancer awareness week (which I'm pretty sure come out of the welfare offices budget and will continue under the gender equality officer next year anyway) and women's week, which doesn't cost very much.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

I agree with firespinner on this.Mad Lad has posted this up on the union website,anyone who is intrested in these matters can read it there.Its odd how suddenly in the run up to these elections that he's see's the need to post on boards.In his post he slagged off our new welfare officer Barry Colfer and bascially said he shouldnt have won.Also he slagged off Morgan Shelly and the rights of UCD.I will enter a debate with him when he is not disregading the people I and the majority of people voted into office.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I am panda100, your God. I know everything. That is all.

mad lad's posts are structured, detailed and referenced.
Firespinner has posted a few sarcastic one liners.

Are you dismissing someones posts merly because they are new?

No but I just dont think its fair what he wrote about the UCD rights.So for him this isnt really about sexism on campus this is to do with the rights of UCD versus the lefts.If he was really intrested in what women in UCD though dont you think he would have listened to what I,a women, had to say........

P.S whoever came up with sapce Invaders agains sexism should be shot-the worst name for a campaign ever

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Panda, I hope the irony of refusing to talk to MadLad because his attack on our democratically elected officers and in the next post threatening to shoot an equally democraticly elected woman's officer is not lost on you.


Here's the proposed role of the Gender Equality Officer for those with better things to do than trawl through the newswire:

14.

(i) The role of the Gender Equality Officer shall be the campaigning and lobbying on all issues relating to discrimination and equality. S/he shall have the assistance of the Campaigns and Communications Vice-President, Education Vice-President and Welfare Vice-President in fulfilling this duty.
(ii) The Gender Equality Officer shall assist and be assisted by the Welfare Vice-President and Campaigns and Communications Vice-President in dealing with and furthering a greater level of knowledge among the Union membership of any student issues relating to discrimination.
(iii) S/he shall be responsible for the co-ordination of a fundraising event for a women’s charity and men’s charity by the 24th of April.
(iv) S/he shall sit on any committee to which s/he is elected and of which s/he is a member.
(v) S/he will deal with all relevant personal cases.

That's some nice unpartial information for you. I'll post my extremely biased opinion on it later this evening

Chinafoot

Hang on a second here folks. The discussion of SU issues has never been forbidden here. Just because he is new doesn't mean he can't post about something that is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

Panda if you don't agree then at least have the maturity to respond with why you don't agree instead of being so dismissive. I seem to recall you telling me how SU issues shouldn't be banned from this forum. Or does that not include opinions that you disagree with?

I don't care how new the poster is. Is this some little club where new members aren't welcome and anything they say will be dismissed?

Firespinner, you can now enjoy a week off from this forum. I have let you away with a lot over the past while and I'm sick of your blatant trolling.

Now can we all use a bit of cop on here and get this thread back on topic.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

peachypants wrote:

Hang on a second here folks. The discussion of SU issues has never been forbidden here. Just because he is new doesn't mean he can't post about something that is very relevant to the discussion at hand.

Panda if you don't agree then at least have the maturity to respond with why you don't agree instead of being so dismissive. I seem to recall you telling me how SU issues shouldn't be banned from this forum. Or does that not include opinions that you disagree with?

I don't care how new the poster is. Is this some little club where new members aren't welcome and anything they say will be dismissed?

Firespinner, you can now enjoy a week off from this forum. I have let you away with a lot over the past while and I'm sick of your blatant trolling.

Now can we all use a bit of cop on here and get this thread back on topic.

Yeah your right I did say to you that its good that su matters are discussed here.
Ok your right lets get this back on topic.Its just not fair that other people are allowed to have their opinions and then when I give my two cents I get comments such as Kaptainredeys 'Im panda 100.I think Im god' comment.Thats not fair,maybe Im not as articualte as pretty monster or blush 01 and tbh I dont do law 0r english so dont really now how to structure an argument.If this makes my points any less valid than I will come back to you in ayear when I have swallowed a theasuras and read the idiots guide to debating.

Anywho,back on topic,can I vote to get rid of the womens officer position and vote no to the su centre levy too?Will these all be seperate or will it be one vote to pass all constitutional amendments.

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

can I vote to get rid of the womens officer position and vote no to the su centre levy too?Will these all be seperate or will it be one vote to pass all constitutional amendments.

Yup - all seperate ballots. Three referenda, one on new Constitution, one on the Women's Officer amendment to the Constitution, and one non-Constitutional referendum relating to the building of the new Student Centre.

Chinafoot

panda100 wrote:

Yeah your right I did say to you that its good that su matters are discussed here.
Ok your right lets get this back on topic.Its just not fair that other people are allowed to have their opinions and then when I give my two cents I get comments such as Kaptainredeys 'Im panda 100.I think Im god' comment.

That has absolutely nothing to do with it. You dismissed his post and told another poster not to bother, hence Kaptain Redeye's post. It has nothing to do with how articulate anyone is. You dismissed mad lad's post in a very rude manner.

Nobody said your posts weren't valid. It was yourself who appeared to be suggesting that mad lad's post was invalid. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say to you. If you want to continue this then PM me.


**on-topic** I'm still undecided with regard to WO. However, as per my earlier post, I don't think it would be right to appoint whoever wins WO to the Gender Equality position.

mad lad

Yes, equality officer would be better

hopefully this will be the last time i have to talk about myself but there has been a number of allegations.

i tried to widen the debate because i think focussing solely on a womens/ GEO was too narrow a way of approaching things. As for the timing, well the things on my mind are influenced by what goes on around me its not a conspiracy. As for it being researched and well written - reasrch involves typing sexism into ucdsus search engine and using the observers website - well written..well tell it to my sociology lecturers

n his post he slagged off our new welfare officer Barry Colfer and bascially said he shouldnt have won.Also he slagged off Morgan Shelly and the rights of UCD.I will enter a debate with him when he is not disregading the people I and the majority of people voted into office.

i am unashamedly very left wing and that is obviously going to come through in what I write. Everyone has biases. I do not believe that barry colfer was a good candidate. i respect people opinions if they believe he was. As for slagging morgan shelly - that is totally justified. You can't pick and choose parts of the constitution to enact.

the majority of students did NOT vote for these people. The majority of students dont vote at all for these positions. as a proporton of ucds population they have a small mandate.

If he was really intrested in what women in UCD though dont you think he would have listened to what I,a women, had to say.

? the post was to encourage people to address the wider issue, to hear people views. If we narrow this to the postion of a union officer when else is this debate going to come up and be addressed

if you want some other "well written and research" bits of writing check out
http://themadlad.blogspot.com/2006/03/warning-medical-profession-may_25.html
(this ones for yourself panda)
http://themadlad.blogspot.com and the archive at
http://themadlad.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_themadlad_archive.html

see its not just here that i write

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

mad lad wrote:

the majority of students did NOT vote for these people. The majority of students dont vote at all for these positions. as a proporton of ucds population they have a small mandate.


? the post was to encourage people to address the wider issue, to hear people views. If we narrow this to the postion of a union officer when else is this debate going to come up and be addressed

if you want some other "well written and research" bits of writing check out
http://themadlad.blogspot.com/2006/03/warning-medical-profession-may_25.html
(this ones for yourself panda)
http://themadlad.blogspot.com and the archive at
http://themadlad.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_themadlad_archive.html

see its not just here that i write

Ah yes You seem to like that medical proffession one a lot-How many times have you posted that on indymedia now and alas only ever one reply from me!!TBH I dont think the world is ready to get rid of us doctors quite yet:)

Ok I am sorry for dismissing your post before.Of course you have just as much right to write on here as I do.Its just that I know your an anarchist and have just found them to be very stubborn with only hearing their own point of view.I suppose my downfall was knowing who your were when you first posted. Didnt realise my one sentence reply to firespinner would come across as so rude to everyone else.

Also I know the majority of people dont vote In ucd but of those who did vote Barry Colfur won fair and square.I dont see how Barry being welfare officer next year fits into your argument??It was just a sly pop at him and doesnt add anything to your womens officer argument

mad lad

Yes, equality officer would be better

panda100 wrote:

Ah yes You seem to like that medical proffession one a lot-How many times have you posted that on indymedia now and alas only ever one reply from me!!TBH I dont think the world is ready to get rid of us doctors quite yet:)

once as a story. parts of the research under a story on neary :mad:

Also I know the majority of people dont vote In ucd but of those who did vote Barry Colfur won fair and square.I dont see how Barry being welfare officer next year fits into your argument??It was just a sly pop at him and doesnt add anything to your womens officer argument

as you probably know in over 30 years of the Students Union existing there have only ever been 3 female Presidents. over the last 4 years, out of 20 sabbatical officers only 2 have been women.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

mad lad wrote:

once as a story. parts of the research under a story on neary :mad:




as you probably know in over 30 years of the Students Union existing there have only ever been 3 female Presidents. over the last 4 years, out of 20 sabbatical officers only 2 have been women.

As you'll perhaps remember form the Neary thread on Indymedia I am passionate about sexual equality particualrly in my chosen proffesion which is grossly uneven. The statistics you quote here about female representation in the su are sad:( However,evidently the womens officer position has done absolutely nothing to change this so do you think maybe it is making things worse for women instead of better??As a women,I think it highly sexist and unfair that mens health issues are dealt with by a trained full time welfare officer with ample resources and time whereas female issues are crammed into a week run by a part time inexperienced womens officer who has to juggle her course with promoting female issues

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

panda100 wrote:

As a women,I think it highly sexist and unfair that mens health issues are dealt with by a trained full time welfare officer with ample resources and time whereas female issues are crammed into a week run by a part time inexperienced womens officer who has to juggle her course with
promoting female issues

But panda don't you see that we'll be doubly screwed by a 'gender equality' officer.
The ge officer will, like the women's officer, be 'inexperienced' and have to juggle his or her course work with promoting both male and female health issues, which should be the work of the full-time, trained welfare officer.

Both sexes will get short changed on health issues and most likely all other issues of gender discrimination and oppression will fall by the way side.

A gender equality officer cuts a worse deal for men and women.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

pretty*monster wrote:

But panda don't you see that we'll be doubly screwed by a 'gender equality' officer.
The ge officer will, like the women's officer, be 'inexperienced' and have to juggle his or her course work with promoting both male and female health issues, which should be the work of the full-time, trained welfare officer.

Both sexes will get short changed on health issues and most likely all other issues of gender discrimination and oppression will fall by the way side.

A gender equality officer cuts a worse deal for men and women.

No because health issues should be dealt with by the welfare officer!!!

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

panda100 wrote:

No because health issues should be dealt with by the welfare officer!!!

Did you read my post at all?

*edit, 'cos ok, perhaps I wasn't clear*

I agree. The womens officer or the ge officer SHOULD NOT be focused on health as it is a job for the welfare officer.
BUT the ge officer's brieht DOES NOT fix this problem, because instead of a woman's officer's focus on womens health, they have a focus on MEN and WOEMN's health.
This is crap and appauling becasue we already have an officer to focus on these things, the welfare officer.
So either, the ge officer will have nothing to do, and is a waste off an officer. Or the ge officer will assist the Welfare officer, again, a waste of an officer cos the Welfare officer has a welfare committee to assist him or her. Or the welfare officer will slack off and leave more work to the ge officer than they can legitimatly do well.

Meanwhile, important issues that the women's officer SHOULD (imo, and sadly in my time in ucd I haven't seen a women's officer tackleing these issues) deal with and raise awareness of, issues quite appart from health, issues relating to the social and political status of women, issues such as...

The fact that only 6 out of 46 of the previous 46 sabats been female...

You count the number of female presidents our union has had on one hand...

Discourse in the union so dominated by male voices...

More women enrole ucd and fewer graduate...

Female graduates earn less than their male counterparts...

A female officer complimented on her 'sexy walk' at council...

There so few female TDs...

Etc...

Remain unaddressed.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

pretty*monster wrote:

But panda don't you see that we'll be doubly screwed by a 'gender equality' officer.
The ge officer will, like the women's officer, be 'inexperienced' and have to juggle his or her course work with promoting both male and female health issues, which should be the work of the full-time, trained welfare officer.

Both sexes will get short changed on health issues and most likely all other issues of gender discrimination and oppression will fall by the way side.

A gender equality officer cuts a worse deal for men and women.

Yes I did read your post.Why will I be doubly screwed??As we both agree the welfare officer should be in charge of all health related issues,whether male or female issues.The womens officer should not be in charge of promoting health at all,yet this is written in the constitution that you dont want to change.The gender equality officer is solely in charge of lobbying on all issues relating to discrimination and equality. So we have the welfare officer doing his/her job with health related issues and a geo to deal with gender equality.No womens officer to mess up things in the process with trying to promote womens health issues when she has no time.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

Right so, if you want the GE officer to back off from health then what do you think s/he should be doing?


oh and

Panda100 wrote:

The womens officer should not be in charge of promoting health at all,yet this is written in the constitution that you dont want to change.

For the rocord, my opinion is that there's lots in the constitution that needs to be changed, but the document we have before it is not the way to go.

John_C

Apathy, apathy I say!

pretty*monster wrote:

Right so, if you want the GE officer to back off from health then what do you think s/he should be doing?

How about:

The fact that only 6 out of 46 of the previous 46 sabats been female...

You count the number of female presidents our union has had on one hand...

Discourse in the union so dominated by male voices...

More women enrole ucd and fewer graduate...

Female graduates earn less than their male counterparts...

A female officer complimented on her 'sexy walk' at council...

There so few female TDs...

Etc...

Remain unaddressed.