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.

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.