Man Running for Women's Officer

Jonny Arson

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

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.

Doesn't mean he's not qualified but if a girl gets raped will she be in the mental frame of mind to want to approach a male womens officer? Highly unlikely. Will a female student feel the exact same comfort in approaching a male instead of woman overly a highly senstive women's health issue? Highly unlikely.

It can't be practical to have a male Women's officer based on these circumstances. In my personal opinion, a bloke running for Women's officer is like a crazy situation resulting in something like a student querying how to learn Irish from an Irish Language Officer who is from Guatemala and who can't speak a word of Irish. I dunno, you get my drift... hopefully!

Blush_01

I think that if the Welfare officer was female, then a male WRO would be just fine. But, if for no reason other than the rape one, there should be a female in one of those two positions to cover the eventuality that a female-to-female conversation is needed, just as there should be access for men to a male confidante with access to information with a view to improving the situation should something similar happen to them. Viv, being a guy, makes me think that the WRO should be female this year. Who knows what will happen next year? KBC member or not, I don't believe that political affiliations make you any better for a job than someone who is apolitical, particularly when the job in question is WRO, LGBTO etc.

Conor, you deserve a Darwin award. Let's see if we can arrange that for you.

Chakar

Blush_01 wrote:

Conor, you deserve a Darwin award. Let's see if we can arrange that for you.

No thanks.

Dori Duz

As a "KBCer", I would like to assure you all that we are not all as narrow minded as Chakar. I believe that the role of women's officer is very important within UCD, for the reasons mentioned above by pretty*monster. For this reason, I believe that students should vote for whom they believe to be the most able candidate, not the one they are politically affiliated with. This applies to all SU elections. It really annoys me that party politics are brought into SU politics. Fair play to those interested in either, or both, who get involved, but don't mix them.

(P.S. I'm a boards virgin, be gentle! )

Chakar

Dori Duz wrote:

As a "KBCer", I would like to assure you all that we are not all as narrow minded as Chakar. I believe that the role of women's officer is very important within UCD, for the reasons mentioned above by pretty*monster. For this reason, I believe that students should vote for whom they believe to be the most able candidate, not the one they are politically affiliated with. This applies to all SU elections. It really annoys me that party politics are brought into SU politics. Fair play to those interested in either, or both, who get involved, but don't mix them.

(P.S. I'm a boards virgin, be gentle! )

How did you come to the conclusion that I was narrow minded? And why would you prefer not to mix the SU and party politics?

I also have a good idea who you are if your description of yourself is anything to go by.

Dori Duz

Chakar wrote:

I also have a good idea who you are if your description of yourself is anything to go by.

Well it doesn't take a genius to work that out, Chaker.

As I though I explained coherently in my above post, I think you are narrow minded because you have decided to make your decision on who to vote for because of a political affiliation that has nothing to do with the SU executive position in question. All students who choose to vote should vote for the person who they believe will do the best job.

I don't believe party politics have any place in the SU. Elected representatives at all levels in the SU should do what's best for the student body. What political party you are affiliated to will obviously influence your opinions, but reps should be responsible enough to make decisions that represent the opinions of the majority of the students that they are in the union to represent.

Sangre

Jonny Arson wrote:

Doesn't mean he's not qualified but if a girl gets raped will she be in the mental frame of mind to want to approach a male womens officer? Highly unlikely. Will a female student feel the exact same comfort in approaching a male instead of woman overly a highly senstive women's health issue? Highly unlikely.

"I've just been raped, I know I'll talk to UCD's Women officer!"

I really just can't imagine that, surely they are one of the last people to talk to. They're not even a trained counsellor. Surely friends, family, Gardai, specialised phone lines and UCD's counselling service will be way ahead on the list.

Tbh, I'd be surprised if someone ever approached the women's officer about their rape at all, never mind first. Tbh even if they did the only thing they should be doing is referring them to trained professionals. Not really something you have to be a woman to do.

Het-Field

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.

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

Well I would hope that Union Folk vote on the basis of Personal Ability, as opposed to party affiliation. If people vote in terms of the party one is affiliated to, you migh as well be voting on the basis of their hair colour, or the course they do. The KBC or Labour Youth or Ogra Sinn Fein YFG and the YPDS all have party political activists, but that has nothing to do with the remit of union officers. When I vote in the USI elections next week, it will have nothing to do with party affiliation.

Chakar

Dori Duz wrote:

Well it doesn't take a genius to work that out, Chaker.

As I thought I explained coherently in my above post, I think you are narrow minded because you have decided to make your decision on who to vote for because of a political affiliation that has nothing to do with the SU executive position in question. All students who choose to vote should vote for the person who they believe will do the best job.

Ah but you see I explained that particular point in one of my posts. Political affliation would be a good indication of my allocation of the vote. I suggest you read it.

Dori Duz wrote:

Elected representatives at all levels in the SU should do what's best for the student body. What political party you are affiliated to will obviously influence your opinions, but reps should be responsible enough to make decisions that represent the opinions of the majority of the students that they are in the union to represent.

I agree with the above statement its perfectly reasonable, that the students should expect that the officer would have the students as his or her first priority.

Dori Duz wrote:

I don't believe party politics have any place in the SU.

However the above statement doesn't make sense when compared to the second last quote. Sure political party would influence your opinions but the officer's first priority would be the students as they were elected to represent the students obviously.However if you were to talk about an sabbatical officer holding a committee position in FF while in office as Brian Doyle did then that would be a different story.

Basically I think you have the wrong end of the stick.

Blush_01

Blush_01 wrote:

Conor, you deserve a Darwin award. Let's see if we can arrange that for you.

A bit far pet.

Sangre

Blush_1 banned for personal abuse.

Attack the post and not the poster. The fact you used his real name was a bit of a give away you weren't doing the former.

mloc

What I don't understand is if there's a women's officer, why isn't there a mens officer?

Surely the fact that there is only a women's officer and not a men's officer implies some sort of need for extra support for women over men, or that women are in some way superior/inferior than men. I don't think either of these are true. Sure there are some women only issues, but there are men only issues also.

A women's officer can't be a de facto equality officer, by defination. It's a bit of a joke position really.

Dori Duz

Chakar wrote:

I suggest you read it.[QUOTE/]
Please don't patronize me. I understand the angle you're coming from. The point I have tried to get across to you, for the third me, is that Political affiliation should NOT be a good indication of the allocation of your vote. You should vote for the candidate you think will do the best job. I agree that they may happen to be a member of a group you are affiliated to, but you should not allow any group to monopolise your vote. I agree with Het-Field's post, if that helps you to understand the point I'm trying to make.


[QUOTE/] I agree with the above statement its perfectly reasonable, that the students should expect that the officer would have the students as his or her first priority
However the above statement doesn't make sense when compared to the second last quote.[QUOTE/]

It makes perfect sense. I believe class reps should put personal opinions aside if they do not represent the views of the majority of their class.

[QUOTE/]However if you were to talk about an sabbatical officer holding a committee position in FF while in office as Brian Doyle did then that would be a different story.[QUOTE/]

For the record, I have no problem with someone holding a position in the SU and KBC at the same time so long as they keep both seperate. I think Brian does a great job at both. This is completely off topic. I don't want to discuss Brian's role either in the SU or in FF.

Chakar

Dori Duz wrote:

Chakar wrote:

I suggest you read it.[QUOTE/]
Please don't patronize me. I understand the angle you're coming from. The point I have tried to get across to you, for the third me, is that Political affiliation should NOT be a good indication of the allocation of your vote. You should vote for the candidate you think will do the best job. I agree that they may happen to be a member of a group you are affiliated to, but you should not allow any group to monopolise your vote. I agree with Het-Field's post, if that helps you to understand the point I'm trying to make.


[QUOTE/] I agree with the above statement its perfectly reasonable, that the students should expect that the officer would have the students as his or her first priority
However the above statement doesn't make sense when compared to the second last quote.[QUOTE/]

It makes perfect sense. I believe class reps should put personal opinions aside if they do not represent the views of the majority of their class.

[QUOTE/]However if you were to talk about an sabbatical officer holding a committee position in FF while in office as Brian Doyle did then that would be a different story.[QUOTE/]

For the record, I have no problem with someone holding a position in the SU and KBC at the same time so long as they keep both seperate. I think Brian does a great job at both. This is completely off topic. I don't want to discuss Brian's role either in the SU or in FF.

Okay I wasn't sure that you had read the posts or had understood my angle. I wasn't trying to patronise you at all. But I see your point anyway.

pretty*monster

mloc wrote:

What I don't understand is if there's a women's officer, why isn't there a mens officer?

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by giving you a brief history of women, suffice to say that I am sure you are aware that as a group women have historically been subordinated in society and that though in recent decades much has been done to shift the balance of power women it is quite likely that woman's historic oppression might have lasting implications that could conceivably affect women today.

Now, you can argue that women have one hundred percent overcome all the limitations that history has put upon them, or you can say that the women's officer is not the right way to deal with these limitation, but if youare in any way intelligent, and you are, you do understand why at the moment we have a women's officer and not a men's officer.

FionnMatthew

Sangre wrote:

"I've just been raped, I know I'll talk to UCD's Women officer!"

Yes, well it does sound ridiculous the way you've said it there. But that's because of the way you said it, not because of the thought itself.

Sangre wrote:

I really just can't imagine that, surely they are one of the last people to talk to. They're not even a trained counsellor. Surely friends, family, Gardai, specialised phone lines and UCD's counselling service will be way ahead on the list.

Tbh, I'd be surprised if someone ever approached the women's officer about their rape at all, never mind first. Tbh even if they did the only thing they should be doing is referring them to trained professionals. Not really something you have to be a woman to do.

I think the point you're missing is that there should be someone there for female students to approach, should they feel it necessary to approach the SU about it. Not everybody thinks straight in a crisis. Not everybody has a mental directory of who to go to. In relation to this specific issue, I'd imagine, a WO provides another way into the procedural nexus you've described.

And, I'm sure you can appreciate that none of what you've described sounds very cosy or attractive. Being on your own in a crisis can stunt action. Many students live on campus away from family members. Many mightn't want to speak to family members. It may just be that a fellow student, a WO, who can assist a victimised student, and can organise meetings with 'trained professionals', would be a far more preferable option than going it alone.

I'm sure you can see that a WO in this instance fills a role that other, more professional figures cannot fill. A WO would never be expected to be a trained professional, but the fact that there is one more channel there through which a victimised student might reach out - a channel that is distinct from the others in ways that increase the possibility that some students (who might not wish to approach the people you've mentioned, but who might see clearer to looking for help through a fellow student) might seek help. Surely you can accept that that is needed?

Stepherunie

Was there not a suggestion a while back that if a male welfare officer was to be elected a women's officers should be elected and vice versa?

Now to me that seems outdated, I'm all for the equality officer because I've seen the women's officer over the last few years do little for women on campus. Now I've never had need of them but there is little promotion with the exception of women's week.

Tbh I find the Women's officer role to be redundant. If you have a decent welfare officer they should be able to cover all aspects of welfare, for women just as much as men.

Some people have made the point that some women would feel better talking to a woman especially if the issue was a delicate one. This is a fair and valid point but having an officer with executive powers is rather rudimentary, especially seeing as that student is also a full time student themselves so may not be available when they are most needed.

What I think could be a good idea is having a number of women and men trained as the women officer is in how to help, to know who to contact etc. As far as I know only the Women's officers and Welfare officer receive this training but if we had a few people trained and there names/numbers available then that would be a further help to the the welfare officer and students alike. Now obviously that would be a bit like nightline but I think UCDSU stopped being so position focused and looked at the bigger picture.

Sangre

FionnMatthew I made the comment because Johnny Arson felt that that scenario alone should exclude men from running for WO. I just couldn't imagine it occuring enough to exclude a whole gender from running for an executive position. Sure its always great to have one more person to talk to but I think UCD/Ireland (with its various lines/counsellors) has more than enough people to approach so we don't have to only have female WOs.

If the fact we have " more channel there through which a victimised student might reach out" then why not just have a Rape Officer (sounds creepy) to fulfill this role. Why not two? Sure an extra channel is good but its not always necessary, especially when its existence excludes men from running for the position.

boneless

Sangre wrote:

"I've just been raped, I know I'll talk to UCD's Women officer!"

I really just can't imagine that, surely they are one of the last people to talk to. They're not even a trained counsellor. Surely friends, family, Gardai, specialised phone lines and UCD's counselling service will be way ahead on the list.

Tbh, I'd be surprised if someone ever approached the women's officer about their rape at all, never mind first. Tbh even if they did the only thing they should be doing is referring them to trained professionals. Not really something you have to be a woman to do.

In a former life, ie the real world, i was a Welfare Officer for my branch of the Communications Workers Union. You would be surprised the issues that people approached me with, including unfortunately a rape case. It can be the case that someone feels that by going to a "stranger" in the first instance they will get objective and sound advice.

On topic, being male should not rule out a person being the WRO. Of course, women may feel more comfortable with a woman in the office. And I still believe that there is a need for a womens officer; unfortunately society is structured in such a way that women are still not afforded the same status as men, despite legislation etc.

elmyra

Thaedydal wrote:

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 ?

Yes, I'd love a medal, cheers. I'm not post feminist, nor feminist, nor am I some archetypal weak women, I'm just average. The reason that I don't believe there is a role for the WO in college is because all of the things that pretty monster mention shouldn't be the remit of a women's officer. Better lighting on campus is something that everyone should have, when you are raped you can go to the rape crisis centre, like every other women who isn't in college. They are far better qualified than some girl who is elected to a position and isn't a professional. The pay imbalance among graduates according to gender is quite frankly something I've never encountered and can't believe to be true in any real sense given that there are laws about that sort of thing and if you were really getting shat on you could take a case.

The role of women's officer according to the constitution is to help out the welfare officer and to run a women's week. Women's week, as I understand it, is essentially about breast cancer and rape, things I believe that women absolutely should know about, but which have counterparts in the male agenda, meaning it should be an equality office than serves both, not a women's office.

Finally- if the women's officer did address lighting on campus or rape alarms or whatever you're into, then maybe, despite their flawed remit, you could understand it, but yaknow what? I've been in college for 3 years and I don't have a rape alarm nor do I feel any safer walking around campus than I did theree years ago.

Hence, given that the women's officer doesn't really achieve anything for me, and I feel that it's existance is only to the detriment of those of us who would like to believe that we do stand on equal footing, then yes, I think I'm perfectly within my rights to think that it's silly.

Red Alert

I think the women's officer is an elitist relic and is baggage the SU would do better without.,

FionnMatthew

elmyra wrote:

I'm not post feminist, nor feminist, nor am I some archetypal weak women, I'm just average.

The fact that you can say "I'm just average" means you are post-feminist.

You consider yourself average. You don't experience yourself as having a reduced set of rights. You don't have to think about your gender marginalising you because it doesn't. Not anymore. Not after feminism. You are post-feminist.

So you've forgotten about the feminist project, and you remain largely apathetic to the ideals of feminism because the world it addresses isn't your world. But it is some people's world. And that justifies it. And that should justify it to you too.

elmyra wrote:

if you are raped you can go to the rape crisis centre, like every other women who isn't in college.

Ah sure, it's easy, isn't it. I'll just hop out of bed and pop down to the rape crisis centre, like every other woman who has been sexually abused. Women's officers are a luxury, really. And what kind of a rape victim needs the option of special considerations? Tut tut, those fussy princesses! Me, I like to just cruise over to the RCC. Just another day at the office.

elmyra wrote:

Women's week, as I understand it, is essentially about breast cancer and rape, things I believe that women absolutely should know about, but which have counterparts in the male agenda, meaning it should be an equality office than serves both, not a women's office.

Or, perhaps, there should be a men's officer too?

elmyra wrote:

Hence, given that the women's officer doesn't really achieve anything for me... then yes, I think I'm perfectly within my rights to think that it's silly.

You're a perfect example of why democracy doesn't work. "It does nothing for me, so I don't see any reason for it to continue to exist."

This is a deplorable egress from your responsibility as a part-decisionmaker in a democratic body. You're not supposed to be making decisions based on how it effects just you.

You subscribe to, and contribute to the decision making of a larger body so as to ensure that that larger body provides for everyone within it. If you don't consider and look after other people's interests when you make your determinations as to what's needed within the SU, then you can't reasonably expect other peope to do the same.

Hence, the democratic body becomes simply a collection of egoists, each pulling their own way. It needn't exist, in that case. How irresponsible of you!

You mightn't benefit directly from it, but it's utterly small minded to assume that you can move from that egoistic recognition to the decision that it shouldn't exist for other people who do benefit from it, and who do want it.

Your reasoning looks like: "I don't like Charles Dickens, and so, even though I know that many, many people like his works, and even though I can see that there is at least sizeable consensus from people that his works should continue to exist, I don't see why I should object to this small group of lunatics burning every Charles Dickens book in existence."

elmyra wrote:

and I feel that it's existance is only to the detriment of those of us who would like to believe that we do stand on equal footing,

That's a really odd idea.
1. You might like to believe that you are on equal footing, but there are a great many people who believe that you are not. The fact that that opinion exists is, perhaps, evidence that you are not.
2. You might be on equal footing, but there are a great many people who don't believe that they are, and it could be said that it is an objective fact that they are not.
3. If it's the fact that there is a women's officer and no men's officer that makes you unable to continue believing that you are on equal footing, I ask you to consider the possibility that you are confusing equivalance and identity. I think it's possible for men and women to be equivalent - I think for the most part they are. But they are not identical. That there is a women's officer precludes the identity of men and women in UCD, but it doesn't preclude the equivalance of them. In fact, if it addresses an imbalance in gender relations within the college, you might say that it makes men and women more equal, because of its existence.

FionnMatthew

Red Alert wrote:

elitist

Meant, presumably, in a derogatory way. What's wrong with elitism, though, really? Isn't elitism the kind of philosophy that should be driving an educational institution like UCD?

pretty*monster

elmyra wrote:

. The pay imbalance among graduates according to gender is quite frankly something I've never encountered and can't believe to be true in any real sense given that there are laws about that sort of thing and if you were really getting shat on you could take a case.

Here's the press release of the ERSI's research of the gender pay gap among graduates.

http://www.esri.ie/news_events/press_releases_archive/2005/degrees_of_equality_gende/index.xml

Several key points:
Within the private sector female graduates were found to earn 8% less per hour than male graduates. Within the public sector there was no significant gender difference in hourly pay.

A higher proportion of men than women have received bonuses from their employers in the last 12 months. 42% of male graduates received bonuses compared to 32% of female graduates. This was mainly but not entirely due to men’s higher concentration in the private sector.

The value of bonuses received was 25% higher among male graduates.

Subject choice and working in female-dominated occupations are found to play a significant role in the gender pay gap in the private sector.

Men in the private sector also receive higher rewards for their qualifications and better returns to previous experience, which could not be explained by difference in personal, educational or organisational characteristics and points to the possibility of indirect discrimination.

gubbie

Het-Field wrote:

Well I would hope that Union Folk vote on the basis of Personal Ability, as opposed to party affiliation. If people vote in terms of the party one is affiliated to, you migh as well be voting on the basis of their hair colour, or the course they do. The KBC or Labour Youth or Ogra Sinn Fein YFG and the YPDS all have party political activists, but that has nothing to do with the remit of union officers. When I vote in the USI elections next week, it will have nothing to do with party affiliation.

Ya it'll be how certain officers treated him over the past year!

*pats Paddy's back*

And Yargh! to Sangre. I wouldn't go to the womens officer if (god forbid) something like that happened to me and I live with the girl! I'd go on upstairs to the medical centre. I'd say they could give you a lot better advice and they'd be much easier to find then the womens officer

Chakar wrote:

Basicly I think you've got the wrong end of the stick

Well she's holding one end, and the rest of us are at the other end... what kind of crazy ass stick is this?

pretty*monster wrote:

I'm not going to insult your intelligence by giving you a brief history of women, suffice to say that I am sure you are aware that as a group women have historically been subordinated in society and that though in recent decades much has been done to shift the balance of power women it is quite likely that woman's historic oppression might have lasting implications that could conceivably affect women today.

So is suggesting a black officer, or a travellers officer a bit too far?

mloc

You kids are crazy.

A woman's officer is neither a trained counsellor nor a medical practicioner. They are utterly unqualified to provide one to one crisis response required to someone has undergone such a traumatic experience as rape, or dealing with breast cancer.

As such, they can only raise awareness of these issues and improve services to cater for them. These are women-only issues. There are equally important men only issues, for which there is no men's officer.

If the position of women's officer is to raise awareness of equality issues, this should be dealt with by an equality officer. A single-gender specific women's officer cannot be an equality officer.

So it boils down to this; either the existance of the position is a paradox or the SU in general are so blindsighted by political correctness and token gestures the true importance of an equality officer position is corrupted.

panda100

mloc wrote:

You kids are crazy.

A woman's officer is neither a trained counsellor nor a medical practicioner. They are utterly unqualified to provide one to one crisis response required to someone has undergone such a traumatic experience as rape, or dealing with breast cancer.
.

Doesnt that make the welfare officer defunct too?

elmyra

FionnMatthew wrote:

The fact that you can say "I'm just average" means you are post-feminist.

You consider yourself average. You don't experience yourself as having a reduced set of rights. You don't have to think about your gender marginalising you because it doesn't. Not anymore. Not after feminism. You are post-feminist.

So you've forgotten about the feminist project, and you remain largely apathetic to the ideals of feminism because the world it addresses isn't your world. But it is some people's world. And that justifies it. And that should justify it to you too.


Ah sure, it's easy, isn't it. I'll just hop out of bed and pop down to the rape crisis centre, like every other woman who has been sexually abused. Women's officers are a luxury, really. And what kind of a rape victim needs the option of special considerations? Tut tut, those fussy princesses! Me, I like to just cruise over to the RCC. Just another day at the office.


Or, perhaps, there should be a men's officer too?


You're a perfect example of why democracy doesn't work. "It does nothing for me, so I don't see any reason for it to continue to exist."

This is a deplorable egress from your responsibility as a part-decisionmaker in a democratic body. You're not supposed to be making decisions based on how it effects just you.

You subscribe to, and contribute to the decision making of a larger body so as to ensure that that larger body provides for everyone within it. If you don't consider and look after other people's interests when you make your determinations as to what's needed within the SU, then you can't reasonably expect other peope to do the same.

Hence, the democratic body becomes simply a collection of egoists, each pulling their own way. It needn't exist, in that case. How irresponsible of you!

You mightn't benefit directly from it, but it's utterly small minded to assume that you can move from that egoistic recognition to the decision that it shouldn't exist for other people who do benefit from it, and who do want it.

Your reasoning looks like: "I don't like Charles Dickens, and so, even though I know that many, many people like his works, and even though I can see that there is at least sizeable consensus from people that his works should continue to exist, I don't see why I should object to this small group of lunatics burning every Charles Dickens book in existence."


That's a really odd idea.
1. You might like to believe that you are on equal footing, but there are a great many people who believe that you are not. The fact that that opinion exists is, perhaps, evidence that you are not.
2. You might be on equal footing, but there are a great many people who don't believe that they are, and it could be said that it is an objective fact that they are not.
3. If it's the fact that there is a women's officer and no men's officer that makes you unable to continue believing that you are on equal footing, I ask you to consider the possibility that you are confusing equivalance and identity. I think it's possible for men and women to be equivalent - I think for the most part they are. But they are not identical. That there is a women's officer precludes the identity of men and women in UCD, but it doesn't preclude the equivalance of them. In fact, if it addresses an imbalance in gender relations within the college, you might say that it makes men and women more equal, because of its existence.

I may have confused you by using the personal pronoun quite a lot but I didn't just mean 'I don't need a women's officer, therefore there shouldn't be one'. Accepting myself as average, given that I can say that the majority of people that I know (who are female ), also feel that it's an office without merit because they don't need it. I'm perfectly well aware of how democracy works and buy into its tennets, but the fact is I nor any other current member of UCDSU voted for there to be a women's officer. Also, in order for me to vote for it as being for the good of others even if not for myself, then I would have to accept that it is for the good of others, and I don't.

I accept your point that it may be better to have a men's officer to redress the balance instead of an equality officer, so please accept my point that the women's officer, as I have experienced it over the past three years, does not address any of the real problems you've come up with, and shouldn't be the person addressing some of the others.

The point I was making about the women's officer being a detriment was thus: the fact that the existance of the women's officer may be indicative to some that it is necessitated because women are somehow unable to deal with these issues themselves or through other existing channels. As such, by trying to create an equality, you are in fact contributing to an imbalance by highlighting the fact that we need such a support. Essentially, you are not equal if you have to tell people that you are equal or require somebody to uphold your equality for you against another group of people whose equality simply 'is'.

Finally to the idea of the original feminist moment, I'll accept that I didn't bother to look up post-feminist, had never encountered it before, and confused it with neo-feminist . To be honest, no I don't identify with the original feminist movemnt. I know it happened, I'm grateful that I don't have to wear corsets, thanks a million...but I don't exactly see how that means that I should accept that the women's office should exist. What, as some sort of throwback to the good old days of bra-burning?

Pretty Monster, that article's shocking and I accept the point, but I don't see how the role of women's officer could ever address or change it on any real scale.

pretty*monster

gubbie wrote:

So is suggesting a black officer, or a travellers officer a bit too far?

If they want one, though I haven't noticed racism to be a problem on campus.
One could argue that since the irish students in ucd are overwhelmingly white (and the international students already have an international students officer) there aren't enough black or traveller students to generate work for a 'black officer' or 'travellers officer'.

pretty*monster

elmyra wrote:

Pretty Monster, that article's shocking and I accept the point, but I don't see how the role of women's officer could ever address or change it on any real scale.

Not on her own, of course not. But it worried me that you, and I think most women in ucd, are unaware of this report and ones like it is something the women's officer could attempt to rectify. We are so often told that feminism is over and that the battles have been won that there is a lack of will to think about these issues, removing the position of women's oficer is another step in this direction I think.