Sexist Graffiti

Nevyn

Does UCD have a WO/WRO or was it abolished ?

Breezer

Thaedydal wrote: »

Does UCD have a WO/WRO or was it abolished ?

I assume that's a women's officer? Yes, it does:

http://ucdsu.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=167

fullstop

Having no men's officer is sexist

gubbie

Ye don't need a mans officer. There is 5 male sabbats.

Breezer

gubbie wrote: »

Ye don't need a mans officer. There is 5 male sabbats.

And let's face it, it's a man's world. Men, in most situations, do not need to fight for their rights.

I can't believe how feminine I'm being in this thread

mloc

There are 5 male sabbats cos people voted for 5 male sabbats. No sabbat post is as such designated male only. Womens officer, on the other hand, caters for women. There should of course be a mens officer if there is womens officer. To have a womens officer and no mens officer simply constitutes a failure of the female student populace to stand up for themselves.

Het-Field

gubbie wrote: »

Ye don't need a mans officer. There is 5 male sabbats.

But why should you have a token women on te executive ? To be honest I am long past caring, and I feel the Union movement is degenerating into a club of close friends, leaving only a few interested and motivated individuals. People like yourself Gubbs and Angel of Fire spring to mind in the latter catagory.

However, i feel the Women's Office is no longer required or necessary. Why not call it a Gender Equality Officer, or SU Enabler, or something like that ?

Breezer

Het-Field wrote: »

Why not call it a Gender Equality Officer, or SU Enabler, or something like that ?

Nothing wrong with that idea, although in practice "Gender Equality" = women's rights. Unless of course you extend the concept to LGBT people, and while you're at that you may as well include other minority groups, and just make it an Equality Officer. That's actually a fairly good idea you have there Het-Field.

dajaffa

*Sigh* I'm doing my best to avoid internet debates about it but the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland. This has pretty much always been the case and is reflected in a typical male : female officer ratio of 4:1. The reason(s) for this are nost as apparent as one might assume, and I'm currently working on a report with the Union of Students in Ireland in this regard. I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation. A gender equality officer wouldn't have much remit to go further than ensure that legislation/similar was not gender biased, and an equality officer has to wide a remit and again wouldn't be trying to get to the heart of the lack of female participation.


As for the graffiti I don't think it is the most constructive way of tackling posters that people think are inappropriate but I do think that there seems to be more posters every year of a *ahem* provocative nature, and I will be looking into ways that this may be curbed somewhat in a reasonable way without banning all bar typing on posters.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm the SU Women's Officer and am contactable at women@ucdsu.ie!

EamonnKeane

gubbie wrote: »

Ye don't need a mans officer. There is 5 male sabbats.

There are 5 male sabbats. (also, there was a free election in which anyone could stand and only 2 women did so.)

Breezer

dajaffa wrote: »

*Sigh* I'm doing my best to avoid internet debates about it but the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland. This has pretty much always been the case and is reflected in a typical male : female officer ratio of 4:1. The reason(s) for this are nost as apparent as one might assume, and I'm currently working on a report with the Union of Students in Ireland in this regard. I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation. A gender equality officer wouldn't have much remit to go further than ensure that legislation/similar was not gender biased, and an equality officer has to wide a remit and again wouldn't be trying to get to the heart of the lack of female participation.


As for the graffiti I don't think it is the most constructive way of tackling posters that people think are inappropriate but I do think that there seems to be more posters every year of a *ahem* provocative nature, and I will be looking into ways that this may be curbed somewhat in a reasonable way without banning all bar typing on posters.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm the SU Women's Officer and am contactable at women@ucdsu.ie!

The woman has spoken! I still think there's scope for an Equality Officer, although I accept it would have to cover a lot of bases.

Veering off topic a bit I know, but are there any short or medium term plans to correct this lack of female participation? Or is it all pending the report?

dajaffa

Breezer wrote: »

Veering off topic a bit I know, but are there any short or medium term plans to correct this lack of female participation? Or is it all pending the report?

There'll be a Womens' Week starting November 3rd which will have plenty of events for people to get involved. The report will be finished around January + I'll be working with officers from other Unions to come up with recommendations to be put to the USI Congress in March. (Incidentally its not solely about womens' participation, 5/6 groups that under-participate are included + being investigated, womens' participation is just the area I'm taking charge of).

Tardy

Easy way to solve the problem: confine these posters to the men's toilets.

fullstop

dajaffa wrote: »

There'll be a Womens' Week starting November 3rd which will have plenty of events for people to get involved. The report will be finished around January + I'll be working with officers from other Unions to come up with recommendations to be put to the USI Congress in March. (Incidentally its not solely about womens' participation, 5/6 groups that under-participate are included + being investigated, womens' participation is just the area I'm taking charge of).

And when is men's week? Equal opportunities and all that....

Raphael

dajaffa wrote: »

*Sigh* I'm doing my best to avoid internet debates about it but the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland. This has pretty much always been the case and is reflected in a typical male : female officer ratio of 4:1. The reason(s) for this are nost as apparent as one might assume, and I'm currently working on a report with the Union of Students in Ireland in this regard. I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation. A gender equality officer wouldn't have much remit to go further than ensure that legislation/similar was not gender biased, and an equality officer has to wide a remit and again wouldn't be trying to get to the heart of the lack of female participation.


As for the graffiti I don't think it is the most constructive way of tackling posters that people think are inappropriate but I do think that there seems to be more posters every year of a *ahem* provocative nature, and I will be looking into ways that this may be curbed somewhat in a reasonable way without banning all bar typing on posters.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm the SU Women's Officer and am contactable at women@ucdsu.ie!

...huh. That is the only good argument I have ever seen for the existence of a women's officer that was not equally an argument for a mens officer. I wish I'd seen it before the election, I would have voted for you rather than spoil my ballot.

ChocolateSauce

Eh, women should stop PMSing. Complaining about it does very little to help their image. The fact the the majority of 600 pointers, medicine and law students are women should be ample evidence that things are changing and that it is a women world just as much as a mans.

I refer to a recent Irish Times survey which showed that the vast majority of women had little or no interest in politics, and regarding shopping and make-up as more important. This isn't my opinion, this is a statement of fact. If this is the case, is it any wonder there are fewer women in elected positions? Men shouldn't be blamed for women's general lack of interest in such things.

Irish Times, September 27th and 28th 2007

dajaffa

fullstop wrote: »

And when is men's week? Equal opportunities and all that....

After Christmas AFAIK. There's usually one anyway.

The_Minister

^^^
The Union never gives it much attention though.

anonymous_joe

dajaffa wrote: »

*Sigh* I'm doing my best to avoid internet debates about it but the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland. This has pretty much always been the case and is reflected in a typical male : female officer ratio of 4:1. The reason(s) for this are nost as apparent as one might assume, and I'm currently working on a report with the Union of Students in Ireland in this regard. I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation. A gender equality officer wouldn't have much remit to go further than ensure that legislation/similar was not gender biased, and an equality officer has to wide a remit and again wouldn't be trying to get to the heart of the lack of female participation.


As for the graffiti I don't think it is the most constructive way of tackling posters that people think are inappropriate but I do think that there seems to be more posters every year of a *ahem* provocative nature, and I will be looking into ways that this may be curbed somewhat in a reasonable way without banning all bar typing on posters.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm the SU Women's Officer and am contactable at women@ucdsu.ie!

Must confess, don't think I've ever seen that position put across so well.

I still think I'd prefer there to be an Equality Officer, but that's mainly semantics.

Mikel

dajaffa wrote: »

*Sigh* I'm doing my best to avoid internet debates about it but the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland. This has pretty much always been the case and is reflected in a typical male : female officer ratio of 4:1. The reason(s) for this are nost as apparent as one might assume, and I'm currently working on a report with the Union of Students in Ireland in this regard. I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation. A gender equality officer wouldn't have much remit to go further than ensure that legislation/similar was not gender biased, and an equality officer has to wide a remit and again wouldn't be trying to get to the heart of the lack of female participation.

In case it wasn't obvious, I'm the SU Women's Officer and am contactable at women@ucdsu.ie!

In that case why isn't the position one of 'Electoral Reform Officer' or 'Electoral Participation Officer'?
Or does the WO concern herself with other issues? In which case your argument breaks down.
I would also question the wisdom of a WO preparing a report on the future of the WO position, and surprisingly you advocate retaining the position.

I think a WO is unnecessary and patronising. It's a token position retained to keep the girlies happy, there is no issue that arises that couldn't be considered under the remit of the other officer positions

anonymous_joe

Bit harsh there, mate.

gubbie

The_Minister wrote: »

^^^
The Union never gives it much attention though.

And the general public never really gives these weeks much attention

dajaffa

Mikel wrote: »

In that case why isn't the position one of 'Electoral Reform Officer' or 'Electoral Participation Officer'?

Imo because then it begins to encompass many other groups and would become more focused on legal and practical issues about participation. Women make up well over 50% of the Union membership, but only 20% (on average) of sabbatical officers, and I think that that merits having a WO to try and rectify this. I don't expect everyone to agree with this, but I think it is at the very least a reasonable argument.

Mikel wrote: »

Or does the WO concern herself with other issues? In which case your argument breaks down

You can read the job description here http://ucdsu.ie/uploadfiles/resources/UCDSU%20Constitution.pdf

The Constitution was changed last year and made the WO role into one more along these lines wheras previously it was "raise money for female charities, distribute safety alarms", and I don't think that's what the role should have been.

Mikel wrote: »

I would also question the wisdom of a WO preparing a report on the future of the WO position, and surprisingly you advocate retaining the position.

The report isn't about the WO position, it's about coming up with ways to improve representation of groups who are under-represented in Student Unions, of which female participation is one.

Pythia

The role of Women's Officer is patronising towards women. It holds women back more than it liberates them. 'Oh, the little women need their little position'. Move it into Welfare or make an Equality Officer and take the focus off women.

Mikel

Well now I'm confused. If the problem is the level of female participation, then the solution would be to encourage it somehow.
I thought that's what you meant here:

dajaffa wrote:

the reason there's a women's officer (imo) is primarily due to a continuous pattern of very few female candidates seeking election to exec/sabbat level in SUs accross Ireland....
I firmly believe in the position being retained as women's officer and not equality officer for the time being so that it specifically tackles this lack of female participation

I thought 'specifically tackles' meant addressing the causes of the issue, hence calling it 'electoral participation' or some such.

dajaffa wrote: »

Imo because then it begins to encompass many other groups and would become more focused on legal and practical issues about participation.

What would be so bad about that?
If the problem is low participation isn't that exactly what you should be doing?

Women make up well over 50% of the Union membership, but only 20% (on average) of sabbatical officers, and I think that that merits having a WO to try and rectify this.

But that's not the job description you attached. You were arguing that the role should be there to tackle the issue, now it sounds like the existence of the role itself is addressing the issue because by definition representation will be at least one in five.
Isn't that basically a token woman then. Why not encourage women to stand for election rather than reserving a place for them at the table under the guise of 'equality'. Not very democratic is it?

Het-Field

I simply think all these equality positions are rubbish. If you are White, ablebodied, hetrosexual Male, Aged 18-35 you dont need to have an officer representing your characteristics, which is effectively what the WO is doing.

dajaffa

Mikel wrote: »

What would be so bad about that?
If the problem is low participation isn't that exactly what you should be doing?

Overall participation is the remit of the Campaigns and Communications VP (previously Deputy President) who is a full-time, paid officer. By miles, female students are the biggest under-represented group, and I think it's worth having an officer (on a part-time unpaid basis) to try and tackle this issue.

Mikel wrote: »

You were arguing that the role should be there to tackle the issue, now it sounds like the existence of the role itself is addressing the issue because by definition representation will be at least one in five.

That wasn't at all the point I made. If you look at the last ten years of UCDSU sabbatical officers, on average there is one female sabbat out of 5. In no way did I say that's what representation there should be, that's what representation there is if you tot up the number of male and female sabbats in the whole country (it's about 60:15 this year).

Mikel

dajaffa wrote: »

Overall participation is the remit of the Campaigns and Communications VP (previously Deputy President) who is a full-time, paid officer. By miles, female students are the biggest under-represented group, and I think it's worth having an officer (on a part-time unpaid basis) to try and tackle this issue.

So isn't that a duplication of roles then?

That wasn't at all the point I made. If you look at the last ten years of UCDSU sabbatical officers, on average there is one female sabbat out of 5. In no way did I say that's what representation there should be, that's what representation there is if you tot up the number of male and female sabbats in the whole country (it's about 60:15 this year)

I didn't say that you were saying that's what it should be.
I said that you were saying that there should be at least one female position guaranteed so that representation would at least be 1 in 5 (or however many positions there are).
Which to me sounds like a token position.

Stepherunie

Tokenism like that is ridiculous and demeaning to women. We don't have a female sabbat and that sucks, but to actually put into a constitution that at least one sabbat must be female is insanity.

Say only one woman chooses to run, then anyone else in that particular election will be eliminated before the polls take place as there would have to be at least one female.

That isn't democracy, that's stupidity and once again demoralising women by saying that they're only good enough to be elected to a sabbatical position because no other girl ran....


We're not delicate little flowers who need to be protected, we don't need to be specifically isolated and given special circumstances just because of our gender.

What the women's officer stands for is to find out why we don't stand up for election at the upper echelons of the Union and trying to address that, not by singling us out in the constitution and getting a position for us purely based on our gender (men can run for women's officer too) but by actually trying to promote the idea.

dajaffa

Mikel wrote: »

I said that you were saying that there should be at least one female position guaranteed so that representation would at least be 1 in 5 (or however many positions there are).
Which to me sounds like a token position.

I don't see what gave you that idea at all. It's not either what I said or what I believe.