Man Running for Women's Officer

elmyra

Word has hit newswire that David Jones (YFG/L&H/2nd Law) may be running for Women's Officer. What do people think?

I think it's silly that there's still a women's officer. I'd much prefer an equality officer.

Of course, I'm not in UCD, but I'm just giving my opinion regardless...

Chakar

Damn Blueshirts!

Obviously Aisling O'Connor as a friend and a KBC'er has my vote.

elmyra

I'm no fan of FG, but I'd hate to think you were voting by affiliation Chakar dear...

Chakar

elmyra wrote:

I'm no fan of FG, but I'd hate to think you were voting by affiliation Chakar dear...

Well I do know her well and she just *happens* to be an active member of the KBC.

Nevyn

Oh ffs 10 years on from when I was a WRO in my own college idiots are still pulling these stunts ?

elmyra

I don't think it's idiotic. Women's officer is a stupid, degrading position that deserves to have the piss taken out of it royally and with as much frequency as possible. Go Dave!

Blowfish

Thaedydal wrote:

Oh ffs 10 years on from when I was a WRO in my own college idiots are still pulling these stunts ?

The stunts are mainly just to highlight the fact that there is no MRO.

Personally I don't particularly care either way. If women want representation then i've no objection. I don't think that there should be a mens representative 'just because they got one'.

elmyra

There is no gender inequality in UCD though and if there is it should be addressed by an Equality officer. Having a Women's officer just makes me ashamed of having ovaries.

Stabshauptmann

Chakar wrote:

Well I do know her well and she just *happens* to be an active member of the KBC.

Everytime theres an election you bring the KBC into it.

Blowfish

elmyra wrote:

There is no gender inequality in UCD though and if there is it should be addressed by an Equality officer. Having a Women's officer just makes me ashamed of having ovaries.

The problem is that there are women who do feel the need for one - hence the reason I tend to avoid this sort of thing

elmyra

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Everytime theres an election you bring the KBC into it.

QFT.

Nothing against the KBC mind, but like, get over it.

Riamfada

What the Hell has voting a Womans Officer in have anything to do with wether he or she is a KBCer or not. Some people have to grow up and stop voting for their pallies on basis of political affiliation.


Sickening. Ill vote for who will do the best job. Good to know Chakar and his KBC palls have the students interest in mind when he votes

elmyra

Blowfish wrote:

The problem is that there are women who do feel the need for one - hence the reason I tend to avoid this sort of thing

Ghastly women, holding the rest of us back. Why don't they just ask the stronger women to do the box lifting or whatever it is that they can't deal with?

If you have to listen to whiny women who want a women's officer then you should have to listen to the other (sensible) women who think the women's officer is sh!te and don't like it. Women's week completely passed me by this year as it has done every other year, and I imagine I'm not in the minority... It's a farce.

I do appreciate that this is the third or fourth ranty post in as many minutes...sorry....

Chakar

elmyra wrote:

QFT.

Nothing against the KBC mind, but like, get over it.

I'm afraid I won't be able to 'get over it'. I've been bitten by the political bug.:)

Of which there is no cure.

Riamfada

Rant Finalization:

Is it not clear to people like Chakar that they are whats wrong with the political process . In college and when the grow up... on a national scale? (jobs for the boys so to speak, or girl as the case may be?)

Chakar

Grimes wrote:

Rant Finalization:

Is it not clear to people like Chakar that they are whats wrong with the political process . In college and when the grow up... on a national scale? (jobs for the boys so to speak, or girl as the case may be?)

But we're the people who get out there and engage in political action by canvassing for their chosen party as I have done many times. So what if I vote according to political affliation. Thats none of your business. People have freedom of association under Bunreacht na hEireann.

You should also remember that all political parties engage in the jobs for the boys and girls and surprisingly FG and Labour when they were last in government appointed more than FF did as the party preferred to promote people with ability within the civil service who do a good job for the government. However the appointments to the top positions on State bodies remain political appointments. Fact.

Anyway they're all bound by legislation to ensure ethical behavior and good conduct in the code of conduct.

Blowfish

Chakar wrote:

Anyway they're all bound by legislation to ensure ethical behavior and good conduct in the code of conduct.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

pretty*monster

It is unfortunate that we need a womans officer address lighting on campus, rape on campus, the well documented prevalence of eating disorders among female university students, the income disparity between male and female graduates, the availability of sanitary products in bathrooms on campus or to come up with any ideas about why women are consistently underrepresented on the union corridor...
These things should be everyones business but, more often than not, they seem of little concern to anyone.
It is perhaps more unfortunate that recent women's officers have made few, if any, moves on these issues.


Will this dude becoming women's officer change anything?
Well, he probably won't bother running women's week and the union will save a few bob while a women's charity will lose out.
Other than that nothing will change.

But then many think this will be a good thing, good luck to ye.

humbert

Grimes wrote:

Rant Finalization:

Is it not clear to people like Chakar that they are whats wrong with the political process . In college and when the grow up... on a national scale? (jobs for the boys so to speak, or girl as the case may be?)

People who cant or wont look beyond political affiliations are demonstrating a stupidity that should make them ineligible to run for any position of leadership, or for that matter to leave the house unchaperoned. I realise there are also greedy, careerist reasons for doing so but that's even worse. I could forgive a moron.

Oh, yea, silly position, doesn't matter who has it.

Chakar

humbert wrote:

People who cant or wont look beyond political affiliations are demonstrating a stupidity that should make them ineligible to run for any position of leadership, or for that matter to leave the house unchaperoned. I realise there are also greedy, careerist reasons for doing so but that's even worse. I could forgive a moron.

That has got be the most naive post I've ever read.

Nevyn

elmyra wrote:

There is no gender inequality in UCD though and if there is it should be addressed by an Equality officer. Having a Women's officer just makes me ashamed of having ovaries.

I am shamed of you having them.

Nevyn

elmyra wrote:

Ghastly women, holding the rest of us back. Why don't they just ask the stronger women to do the box lifting or whatever it is that they can't deal with?

If you have to listen to whiny women who want a women's officer then you should have to listen to the other (sensible) women who think the women's officer is sh!te and don't like it. Women's week completely passed me by this year as it has done every other year, and I imagine I'm not in the minority... It's a farce.

I do appreciate that this is the third or fourth ranty post in as many minutes...sorry....

Well whoop de do you are a person who does not then need a wro.
What do you want a frickin medal ?
What about those that do ?
What about the issues that pretty*monster pointed out ?

Do you caught up in your post feminsim ignorace know why there is the role of Wro in colleges ?

Jonny Arson

I disagree that the Women's Officer is a ''stupid position.'' Some of the comments here about the position are staggering. Women need representation and Women need someone to confide in with regards to specific Women's issues. I think it's a pathetic and cheap publicity stunt if a bloke runs for the position, yes the loophole is there but FFS you would think any male student would have more cop on not to run.

I believe the Women's Officer is a good idea (once the role is utilized properly) and likewise I believe there should be a Men's officer (and not the basis of ''if women should have one, we should have one!'')..... we Men unbelievably have specific issues too!

Blowfish

Chakar wrote:

That has got be the most naive post I've ever read.

Chakar...seriously...you crack me up.

What about this?

Chakar wrote:

Anyway they're all bound by legislation to ensure ethical behavior and good conduct in the code of conduct.

You say that straight after admitting that all parties are involved in 'jobs for the boys and girls'. You don't see that as being naive no?

Jonny Arson wrote:

I believe the Women's Officer is a good idea (once the role is utilized properly) and likewise I believe there should be a Men's officer (and not the basis of ''if women should have one, we should have one!'')..... we Men unbelievably have specific issues too!

I would argue that womens issues are generally more serious than mens. Besides either way, a man running for Womens officer is a silly way to achieve that.

dajaffa

Personally I've always been in favour of replacing the Women's Officer with a gender equality officer, the problem is that with that title you would have to reduce the responsibilities of the role compared to what it is now. If you read the constitution...

(i) The role of the Women’s Officer shall be to assist the Welfare Officer with the campaigning and lobbying on women’s issues
(ii) The Women’s Officer shall co-ordinate the widespread availability of security alarms to students on campus.
(iii) The Women’s Officer shall be responsible for the co-ordination of a fundraising event for a women’s charity in the Michaelmas term.

Personally I think line 2 can be done by the welfare officer, as for the other 2, they are not limited to the area of gender equality per se, so renaming it gender equality officer wouldn't work, and calling it equality officer would indicate a very wide remit, one which would be worthy of it's own sabbatical position. Pre-dominantly, the biggest issue the people have with the position is it's title, the fact that it indicates that it is excluding men, but they still have a vote.

Frankly the best realistic thing I can think of is to remove it as a voting exec position (which means the ordinary UCD student wouldn't be voting), and replace it with 3 non-voting exec positions to be elected by council; a mens health awareness officer, a women's health awareness officer and a gender equality officer. The problem with this would be the amount of overlap with the welfare officers role... Anyway that's what I'd do.

As for Dave, well as far as I gather he's running to take the piss so I can't be supportive of him, many aspects of the job are important, and there is a lot of good work the women's officer can do which could benefit all students. I've no problem in principle with a guy running for it, but only if they had a definite interest in the job itself, at least SOME of the aspects of it, rather than as a complete joke.


EDIT: And Chakar, frankly I am shocked at your attitude. Would you say that if Dave were in the KBC and Aisling were in YFG you'd vote for him? UCDSU should not be about political affiliations. Admittedly in the past thats all it was about, but it has moved on. It still plays a part, but is not the determining basis for everything. And just so you know there is a whole world outside of the KBC, even a world outside of politics :O

Jonny Arson

Blowfish wrote:

I would argue that womens issues are generally more serious than mens. Besides either way, a man running for Womens officer is a silly way to achieve that.

With regards to some aspects esp. rape, unwanted pregnancies yes you could conclude that but don't forget young Male suicide rates are absolutely out of control, testicular cancer is ever prominent so there is really no point in bothering to try say anything like ''Women's Problems'' > ''Men's Problems''.... highly complex issues and no cases are ever the same or camparible..... I still fundamentally believe there should be Womens and Mens representation on campus (take Dajaffa's point about rejigging the positions in tandem with an Equality officer).

humbert

Chakar wrote:

That has got be the most naive post I've ever read.

Thus adding further weight to the prevailing suspicion that you don't read your own posts.

Chakar

Blowfish wrote:

Chakar...seriously...you crack me up.

What about this?

You say that straight after admitting that all parties are involved in 'jobs for the boys and girls'. You don't see that as being naive no?

No because appointments to committees of State bodies are political appointments. There are also advisers who are appointed to advise to the ministers. Thats the context I was referring to in terms of 'jobs for the boys and girls'.

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Ppl who cant but vote party line, either cant think for themselves or want something out of it. To condense humbert's post. I fail to see the niavity

We have a difference in opinion obviously but don't just assume that I like the things FF do all the time or will blindly vote for FF regardless.


But back to the context of myself voting for candidates in UCDSU elections. This year sabbatical elections are a case in point as all the candidates in the elections with one exception elected were members of the KBC and FF. This shows that the people who were elected were deemed to be the best candidate were also members of the KBC. My political affliation would be a very good indicator of how I would vote but its not set in stone.

Scraggs

I've no problem with a man being WO. I think perhaps people should wait until manifestos are out before deciding who they're going to vote for. I think a hustings should definitely be organised!

Stabshauptmann

TBH, the fact that Daves a man doesnt immediately mean he's not qualified. We've had welfare officers who have never drank, done drugs, had a one night stand or faced financial difficulty. While knowing what your talking about would be useful, experiencing a problem yourself doesnt make you a hell of a lot more qualified to solve it.