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

panda100

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?
.

He/she should be lobbying and campaigning on all issues relating to discrimination and equality.Exactly what the GE officer is expected to do

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

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

How many females ran for election compared to male?

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

Again, how many ran for election? 1 ran in the last election, I think..

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

Dunno anythin about union meetings, but if it's a matter of whoever shouts the loudest gets their point heard, then some serious reforms need to be introduced. I would have thought that it would be a rotational system, everyone getting to speak and so on...

How is it dominated by male voices?

More women enrole ucd and fewer graduate...

Couldn't tell you why that is, I woulda thought more women graduate, but I'm sure you've got numbers to prove it so I'll take your word on that.

Maybe women are more indecisive? Or maybe they're more picky, so if they realise they don't enjoy a course they change it? Or maybe men are just idle and aren't arsed changing course/college if they don't enjoy it?

Equality officer™ should really get chattin to men about this unwillingness to drop out.

Female graduates earn less than their male counterparts...

In the same profession, or just in general...? If it's the former, then pretty sure this wouldn't be allowed, so I'm gathering it's the latter (if ye wanna point out the research for this, it'd help me get a clearer picture).

Perhaps females gravitate towards lower-paid professions? Couldn't tell ye how much social workers get paid, but the majority of social science students are females, so I'd imagine that for example they'd be more inclined to work in that area.

And regardless, I could say that more rubbish-collectors are male, it doesn't really mean anything does it? Either women are being discriminated against to stop them working in the area of sanitation, or women are afraid of breaking nails so they steer clear of that profession.

And so the circle continues...

There so few female TDs...

Again, not running for election.

Vainglory

Yes, equality officer would be better

There are reasons why women don't run for election. That's the sort of thing a womens' officer should address.

Good grief.

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

What are the reasons? You can say that it's about women having to stay at home and look after children so they don't get a chance to run for election, so it's a flaw in society, which is a decent point, except it's not consistent with college elections, when they have the same responsibilities as males. Why don't as many females run for election in college as males? (assuming this premise is true, I can't actually find numbers on it!)

anonymous_joe

Apathy, apathy I say!

I didn't bother voting, but I would have voted for the best candidate. If suitable women candidates aren't put forward, then no women will be elected.

John_C

Apathy, apathy I say!

Vainglory wrote:

There are reasons why women don't run for election. That's the sort of thing a womens' officer should address.

Good grief.

Should, but doesn't. A failure on the part of the current system?

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

This is the problem. You people don't want to face up to the reality that women are still not on equal footing with men, That's why we need a dedicated woman's officer, unfortunaly it looks like the first thing she needs to do is wake everyone up to the realities of the situation.


"If a group is kept out of something for long enough, it is overwhelmingly likely that activities of that sort will develop in a way unsuited to the excluded group. We know for certain women have been kept out of many kinds of work, and this means that the work is quite likely to be unsuited to them. The most obvious example of this is the incompatibility of most work with the bearing and raising of children; I am firmly convinced that if women had been fully invoolved in the running of society from the start they would have found a way of arranging work and children to fit each other".
- J. Radcliffe Richards


Seems perfectly logical to me.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

DaveMcG wrote:

In the same profession, or just in general...? If it's the former, then pretty sure this wouldn't be allowed, so I'm gathering it's the latter (if ye wanna point out the research for this, it'd help me get a clearer picture).

Perhaps females gravitate towards lower-paid professions? Couldn't tell ye how much social workers get paid, but the majority of social science students are females, so I'd imagine that for example they'd be more inclined to work in that area.

And regardless, I could say that more rubbish-collectors are male, it doesn't really mean anything does it? Either women are being discriminated against to stop them working in the area of sanitation, or women are afraid of breaking nails so they steer clear of that profession.

Women are still ghettoised in low paid part-time employment.

To the suggestion that females gravitate towards low paid proffessions, I'd argue that female dominated proffessions such as nursing and social work have historically been low paid exactly because they're female dominated.


As to you're comment about breaking nails. Well done. I hope you're enjoying being part of the problem.

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

Yeah yeah, keep fighting the good fight :rolleyes:

You'll also notice that I said "Or maybe men are just idle and aren't arsed...", but sure why would you acknowledge that when it's easier to jerk your knee and try to paint me as a misogynist of sorts...

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

For the benefit of those who haven't twigged (and not that I'm stifling debate, this thread seems to have started before the amendments were tabled), the referendum on amending the Women's Officer to Gender Equality Officer has been postponed, having being ruled itself unconstitutional by the Independent Appeals Board today.

anonymous_joe

Apathy, apathy I say!

But we were having another hate-filled argument...

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

anonymous_joe wrote:

But we were having another hate-filled argument...

Oh, don't let me stop you, I have lots of popcorn left and I'm quite comfy.

anonymous_joe

Apathy, apathy I say!

Nah, I wasn't that interested. But it's always a good argument...

fly_agaric

DaveMcG wrote:

it's easier to jerk your knee and try to paint me as a misogynist of sorts...

{delurk}
But you are you know. You dared question some Feminist Articles of The Holy Faith -> you are a dirty misogynist!
{/delurk}

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

Does anyone else think that they should put off having the womens officer elctions until after the vote for the constitutinal amendment has taken place. How can students be expected to vote for a womens officer if that position mightnt even exist next year.As I said before I wouldnt have the same faith in some one who would run for a 'womens' officer position then someone who ran for a gender equality position. Do you think Morgan Shelly would consider changing the elctions of the womens officer until after the constitution vote?

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

Do you think Morgan Shelly would consider changing the elctions of the womens officer until after the constitution vote?

You mean the constitutional referendum that won't be happening until at least October, and will probably be a slightly amended document? Seems fate takes care of these things for us.

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

panda100 wrote:

Does anyone else think that they should put off having the womens officer elctions until after the vote for the constitutinal amendment has taken place. How can students be expected to vote for a womens officer if that position mightnt even exist next year.As I said before I wouldnt have the same faith in some one who would run for a 'womens' officer position then someone who ran for a gender equality position. Do you think Morgan Shelly would consider changing the elctions of the womens officer until after the constitution vote?

I agree. If someone felt 'moved' enough to run for election for women's officer, then they obviously cared about women's problems and what have ye. But do you think the same person would be interested in running for the position of men's officer, if the position existed? Doubt it, so it'll most likely end up with someone who only cares about HALF of the duties they were appointed to carry out, and they'll either (a) completely ignore men's issues [should there actually be any, I guess], or (b) put on some half-ass events for men [like strippers!... hey, maybe I will vote!]

So we'll probably end up with some raving feminist going on about how women are being oppressed etc, only under the title of Equality Officer™.

panda100

Apathy, apathy I say!

I cant see what the problem is waiting till October to vote for a womens or equality officer.Its not like UCD will crumble to the ground without one for a month

Vainglory

Yes, equality officer would be better

The "problem" seen by the Yes side is the issue of quorum. Class rep elections generally have quite a low college-wide turnout (class reps generally elected by about 30 votes on average). If this was to be run alongside class rep elections it would need 3300 people to vote for the result to be valid, no matter what the outcome.

That's why they were so keen to hold it with the executive elections and the referendum on the new student centre.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

DaveMcG wrote:

So we'll probably end up with some raving feminist going on about how women are being oppressed etc,..

Oh, heaven forbid!

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

I know! I see enough of it on this forum, the last thing I want is for my lectures to be interupted by misandric rhetoric/babbling!

Riamfada

Apathy, apathy I say!

Dave you have no idea what you have just gotten yourself into

Grimes grabs popcorn. A very large box of popcorn

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

/me asks for some of this popcorn

anonymous_joe

Apathy, apathy I say!

Ooooh. This'll be fun.

pretty*monster

Yes, equality officer would be better

DaveMcG wrote:

I know! I see enough of it on this forum, the last thing I want is for my lectures to be interupted by misandric rhetoric/babbling!

At the risk of playing to the crowd... (and my god, if you're sick of hearing this, be assured I'm sick of saying it)...

Feminism. Is. Not. Anti-men.

The rights of men should not encroach on the rights of women, historically when they did, then yes, women had to push back against them, but mainstream feminism (and most brands of fringe feminism) was never about hating men, trying to turn the tables and oppress men, or any other anti-male sentiment....

What is you're problem? Seriously?
When have you encountered feminists in ucd interrupting you're lectures with misandric rhetoric/babbling? Or are you just talking through your ass?



“Women who say they are not feminists and act like individuals with basic human rights have just got their terminology wrong." Kaz Cooke

singingstranger

Apathy, apathy I say!

I know I'm setting myself up for a basic meltdown here but then why do you object to terming it the "equality movement"?

Riamfada

Apathy, apathy I say!

(grimes gives popcorn to silentstranger- pass the m&ms this is the best bit)

anonymous_joe

Apathy, apathy I say!

pretty*monster wrote:

At the risk of playing to the crowd... (and my god, if you're sick of hearing this, be assured I'm sick of saying it)...

Feminism. Is. Not. Anti-men.

The rights of men should not encroach on the rights of women, historically when they did, then yes, women had to push back against them, but mainstream feminism (and most brands of fringe feminism) was never about hating men, trying to turn the tables and oppress men, or any other anti-male sentiment....

What is you're problem? Seriously?
When have you encountered feminists in ucd interrupting you're lectures with misandric rhetoric/babbling? Or are you just talking through your ass?



“Women who say they are not feminists and act like individuals with basic human rights have just got their terminology wrong." Kaz Cooke

Of course you're right, not going to deny that one bit, but, I have noticed that anti-male comments/views are more than acceptable in UCD, but anti-female comments are (rightly) not acceptable...

Riamfada

Apathy, apathy I say!

Im sorry Kate but your quote comes from Courtney Love a suspected murderer and money whorer of what should belong to two other people.


I saw this little riot grrl in Spin who was holding a little magazine called Princess. She's 15, but everything in her little riot grrl world - like Hello Kitty products - is telling her to act like she's seven. That's not feminism, it's cultural anorexia."


Perhaps Courtney's idea of femininity (is that a word, i wouldnt know me man, brain no work good) is not what it means to be female but what a minority of women would like "feminine" to be when its actually prada bags,hello kitty products and princess magazines are the def of feminine just like porn,football and cars are masculine. It works the same way for men, we are all the same willy or punnani . We are all human

Dave!

Apathy, apathy I say!

lol, oh dear

1. I was taking the p*ss, as were you with your sarcastic "Oh, heaven forbid!" comment. You obviously think I'm some sort of imbecile, because of my own choice of words, and feel the need to point out that there were never bra-burners, and that your cause is right and just. Preeeety sure most educated people have read that little factoid on a Christmas cracker or somewhere similar, but I probably brought it on myself with my own rhetoric.

2. I don't have a problem! Seriously! :eek: I just don't think that there is a need for a women's officer. In general women are not discriminated against for jobs or anything anymore. The only decent point I see being made (and I believe I was the one who actually made it!) is that women are 'stuck at home' minding the kids etc.; however, as I'm sure we all see and hear, we're getting more stay at home dads, women are becomming more career-orientated, kids are end up in creches for the day, etc etc., and society is moving along quite nicely in that respect, without the necessity for feminist groups handing out free tampons and what have ye.

Grimes wrote:

Perhaps Courtney's idea of fenininity (is that a word, i wouldnt know me man, brain no work good) is not what it mean to be female but what a minority of women would like "feminine" to be when its actually prada bags,hello kitty products and princess magazines. It works the same way for men, we are all the same willy or punnani . We are all human

Ahh but Graham, femininity and feminism aren't the same thing, y'see? Feminists wear trousers

(pretty*monster, feel free to regale me with information and quotes to rubbish my last sentence if you like; or, just don't take everything seriously and to heart. At the very least, take my posts with a pinch of salt)