Harriet Jean Evans takes a look at the social commentary of the past, and explains why she believes it just doesn't matter.
Our anonymous blogger reflects on her attempts to have a student Christmas... and how she came to the conclusion that home-made is always best.
Josiah Mortimer examines the causes and possible solutions of the youth unemployment... and why he thinks the Occupy movement has done something significant.
It has been a few years since the number of women going to university exceeded the number of men doing so, and yet a glance through the YUSU website reveals the student union to massively over-represent men. There is not a single female Sabb this year. The Women’s Committee is essential to the student union, for two reasons: firstly, it represents women, a group woefully under-represented; second, Women’s Officers provide a welfare obligation set out in YUSU’s constitution.
The most worrying change this motion proposes is that the position of Gender Equality Officer(s) would not be restricted by gender, i.e. there is no guarantee that either position would be filled by a self-defining woman. This raises the possibility of a committee, ostensibly committed to gender equality, which could entirely subordinate women’s issues and representation under the broader umbrella of ‘gender issues.’ Women’s rights could be sidelined whilst the Gender Equality Committee deals with its much wider remit (which has not yet been specified by those supporting the motion, but would include men’s issues, and those who do not consider themselves on either side of the gender binary). Why does this wider discussion, whilst important, have to happen at the expense of a committee dedicated solely to women’s rights?
Can you imagine another liberation group undergoing the same change? Would it make sense to replace the LGBT Committee with a Sexual Orientation Equality Committee, whose officers could all define as heterosexual?
Men can, should, be feminists, be concerned with gender equality, and feel that their university recognises the gender issues they face. But it is absolutely essential that the role of Women’s Officer remains. Men encounter sexism in the form of enforced expectations of masculinity, which is pervasive and deserves critique; they do not suffer a lack of representation in their student union, or indeed in government: only 22% of MPs are women in the UK (Centre for Women and Democracy). They also do not suffer increased chances of sexual assault, a welfare issue the Women’s Officers deal with specifically and are currently organising a Reclaim the Night campaign for. If they succeed, lighting in the darkest areas of the campus will dramatically improve, allowing students (especially women) to walk to and from campus at night safely.
There have also been instances of misogyny which the Women’s Committee have been outspoken about, such as the advertising of a recent Tokyo club night which tempted students with the prospect of being ‘knee-deep in clunge,’ as well as other clubs handing out free alcohol to women who agreed to kiss each other on camera. If you are still not convinced that women are exposed to flagrant misogyny from their fellow students, consider the vote last year which led to the ‘lad’s mags’ in Your:Shop being uncovered. Our student union shop proudly displays publications which earn their living from objectifying women, whilst at some other UK universities, ‘lad’s mags’ are banned from union shops for this very reason.
Indeed, the role of Women’s Officer, and the Women’s Committee, has proven to be extremely effective in promoting women’s rights. Last year, the committee succeeded in making the charity Survive, who help victims of sexual assault and abuse, a RAG beneficiary. On a wider scale, the committee’s events last year included a collaboration with Amnesty to raise awareness of female genital mutilation (FGM). A petition for the EU to create strategies for criminalising FGM was signed by large numbers of students, not only in York but across Europe; the importance of solidarity across borders for women who experience oppression is key to the Women’s Committee. Is any appeal to liberality – ‘we should allow people of any gender to represent the women’s liberation movement’ – more important than the shared, lived experience that is integral to that movement?
The Centre of Women and Democracy have said that in the UK, ‘women are dramatically underrepresented in positions of politics, power and influence. This lack of women at the top table of politics sends a clear signal to other walks of life: it is acceptable to cut women out from positions of power.’
We need to recognise that this is not acceptable. It is absolutely unpalatable that women are not only lacking positions of power within YUSU, but that women representatives might actually be cut out of their own liberation group.
The proposed motion is a kick in the teeth for those women and men who have struggled, against a wall of apathy and indifference, to raise women’s issues and make palpable changes on campus. I urge you to vote NO to the Gender Equality Motion, and save our Women’s Officers.
The views expressed in this article belong solely to the author and not to the yorker.
As a man, I find the idea that I need an elected rep. to specifically represent my rights, absurd. Society has done a pretty good job of making sure I'm not disadvantaged as a result of my gender.
Unfortunately, the same can not be said for women. Maybe a day may come when a women's officer isn't needed. Today is not that day. Stupid motion, proposed by stupid people.
Would like to point out that since this article's publication, part of the motion has been amended:
"1. The Union will change the role of the Womens Officer(s) to Gender Equalities Officer(s) to be held by two people; one must self-define as woman and the other must self-define as a man."
I still hold the position that a separate Women's Committee and Women's Officer role is essential.
Gillian, some questions:
How is not covering lad's mags misogynistic? Are you labelling YUSU as an organisation and everyone who voted not to cover the mag, male or female as misogynists? If the claim is the magazines objectify women, so do every single beauty and celebrity magazine on stands. Should they all be covered as well? Also, should the people who buy lads mags be made to feel ostracised, dirty and reprehensible for buying the magazines?
As for the change, I'm not sure where I stand. Obviously I emphasise with the idea that the change will harm women's representation. However, it seems to me that gender equality is the more progressive option. Feminism to me is about gender equality. The work feminists do towards that is fantastic. Unfortunately the bracket of feminist also contains people who act against equality - an extreme example are claims that men are all inherently rapists. A firm definition in the name that equality is the goal seems perfectly reasonable, the enforced self-definition of both sexes allows representation for both. Don't forget, there are some issues of sexism against men. It also might open up room for discussion about gender as a male, what does it mean to be male in the 21st century etc.
All in all, I don't feel women's issues are being sidelined by this change, rather overall goals are being defined and men are being brought into the YUSU gender discourse (yeah, using the intellectual words there). If you can tell me otherwise I'm all ears.
Gillian, I'm pretty sure that if the motion got passed, it would not be an absolute catastrophe for the women on campus. I'm also pretty sure that sexism isn't really a massive issue within YUSU and that, since their whole purpose is to represent the student body (which after all consists mostly of women), and that whoever named the motion the 'Gender Equality Emotion' did so for a reason.
I am in complete agreement that women-only positions are crucial to welfare, and should remain. I have no doubts of that in my mind.
But I do think it is a big jump to say that having a women's officer is representing women. I'd go as far to say that a women specific position fails at representing women. At least in the organisations I've worked in (and I can't comment on the specific case of YUSU as I haven't worked in that organisation), the problem with what I describe as this "tokenistic" representation is that when you have a women's officer, the role of representing women is placed on that one person. That should never be the case. The role of representing women should be incumbent on all members of the organisation, and the role of women's officer as a representative role suggests that it is not.
I strongly believe that the best way to increase women's representation is not through an officer, but by forcing all officers to deal with the matter. It's not a matter of being misogynistic, it's a matter of wanting better representation.
However, the problem I have is that motion 2 doesn't address that and as I said in my article, I believe that will mean the motion will fail and close down the real debate around the role of how you best represent under-represented groups.
Anonymous #1: 'Lads' mags' are inherently misogynist, as they reduce women to sexual objects, whilst not doing the same for men. There are no equivalent publications where the genders are reversed. So I believe that those who voted for the magazines to be uncovered do not consider that a problem at all in our society.
I do happen to believe that beauty magazines and 'women's' magazines are distinctly anti-feminist and sexist. Do I think they should be covered up? No, I want them to change the way they represent and talk to women. I do not reserve the same hope for 'lad's mags,' so I would rather they didn't exist.
"Unfortunately the bracket of feminist also contains people who act against equality - an extreme example are claims that men are all inherently rapists"
Wow. Do you know how radical and fringe that view is? Have you ever encountered that view in any Women's Committee member? Don't judge a movement on its extremists, please.
I would also say that men are always actively encouraged to attend WomCom, and we always want men to come and represent their side of the discussion. But there are issues on which women are disproportionately affected when it comes to gender equality - representation is one, sexual violence another. There needs to be adequate provision for this, and I worry that the person who wrote this motion may not have thought through exactly how to acheive this.
#4 "I'm also pretty sure that sexism isn't really a massive issue within YUSU and that, since their whole purpose is to represent the student body (which after all consists mostly of women), and that whoever named the motion the 'Gender Equality Emotion' did so for a reason."
YUSU isn't sexist; the structures in which we operate are. These structures have led to an under-representation of women in YUSU.
Alan, you are right that the onus of discussing women's issues should be on all of us. But history has taught us that we cannot expect that to be the case, we must push and fight for it sometimes. I personally believe the best way to increase women's representation is to take a holistic approach, starting with why less women than men run for elected positions in the first place.
Also, you assume that if all the male Sabbs of YUSU, for example, were to be forced to consider women's issues as a matter of course that they would be able to do so as well as they could if there were women round the table with them. Can anything be a substitute for lived experience? Only up to a point.
May I also add that the notion that 'Gender Equality' is represented adequately by having one self-identified woman and one self-identified man as Officers excludes a) people who don't indentify according to gender binary and b) trans issues.
"But there are issues on which women are disproportionately affected when it comes to gender equality - representation is one, sexual violence another."
"Can anything be a substitute for lived experience? Only up to a point."
So really what you're saying is that someone who hasn't suffered from both these things isn't fit for the job. So women running should be self-defining as 'having suffered from sexual violence'? Not very realistic. As for 'representation' someone running from women's officer is probably the least likely of all women to have that problem, since they're confident enough to run in the first place! Catch 22?
Or is that not what you mean? But surely not just *any* woman would give you 'lived experience'..?
A different anonymous here. Genuinely curious rather than attacking with fatuous points (I hope...). I think I get your point, but surely the ammendment you make in comment #2 means that there definitely WILL be women represented. And even if he doesn't have lived experience, a large part of the male gender-equality officer's role will also be to help women's views be heard. I'm not sure what's wrong with that?
Anon #8: A woman will more likely (not definitely) have experienced either sexual assault/harassment OR experienced the socialisation almost all women face - we are taught to fear walking alone at night, we are told to dress modestly to prevent rape etc. A man almost definitely will not have the same reference points.
#9 "And even if he doesn't have lived experience, a large part of the male gender-equality officer's role will also be to help women's views be heard."
That won't be his role at all, that will be the role of the female officer. His role will to have men's voices heard on issues of sexism and inequality.
But I see your larger point. I would say in response that the motion would make the women's rights side of the gender equality conversation less autonomous and self-led as it is now. What would happen if the female officer wanted to campaign on an issue, and the male officer didn't agree that it WAS an issue, or indeed that it was too much of a single-gendered issue (i.e. might only affect/interest women). Do you see what I mean?
#9 here again. Hypothetically, I can see your point. But I would hope that whoever the male Gender Equality Officer would be, they would surely have stood for the position knowing that there would almost certainly be a leaning toward's women's issues, and would back their fellow officer consistently. Certainly, issues such as lighting on campus are easy to understand irrespective of gender. I can't envision many situations in which the new system would comprimise having women's issues heard. Having said that, I'm not saying I vehemently disagree with you, I don't have particularly strong feelings on the debate, I just wanted to clarify exactly how big an impact you thought the changes would have. I didn't know if it was more a superficial than a fundamental change - a change to the title of the role, and the introduction of a male representative too (who, by your own admission in the 5th paragraph, could be seen as necessary).
#3 Here
Yes, I defiantly know it's radical and fringe view. I'm certainly not putting that onto Women's Committee. I've got a fair few friends in there and they are all fantastic people. The example was to show that feminism has many definitions, Gender Equality takes and endorses the best of them.
However, just like Women's Studies is now Gender Studies, feel this maybe should go in the same way. Women's committee I assume can still exist, I'd love it to, it does some great work. It's just the change for representatives for Gender at the YUSU level to be from both sexes and with a clear role for equality. Here's what I want to prevent: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/nov/23/men-students-support-groups-universities
See Olivia Bailey, NUS national women's officer's comment mid-article. I'm not saying the current women's officers hold such a view. I'm a man, I don't feel I need a Men's committee, but I could see how other men might. Having it labelled ludicrous isn't helpful. I think that having an equal split means that in the unforeseeable future we won't have gender representation in the uni like that.
As for the gender binary issue...surely having one of male, one of female is more friendly than just one sex? It's not perfect, but better
Finally, back to the magazines. Of course there are equivalent publications. Again beauty/celeb/gossip mags - 'torso of the week, man in underwear with little to imagination etc.
"Gender Equality takes and endorses the best of them."
...Really? To me it still leaves scope for a huge range of feminisms, and room for people to vehemently disagree on how to acheive gender equality. It's not a quick fix.
As for the magazines, name a single publication you see regularly in newsagents which ONLY exist for the purpose of showing women men's bodies. Zoo, Nuts, and then the host of soft porn mags you see at the moment are firmly marketed towards the hereo man.
"As for the gender binary issue...surely having one of male, one of female is more friendly than just one sex? It's not perfect, but better"
As Emma Brownbill noted on Twitter, having a Women's Committee implies there's women, and there's everyone else. Having a GE Committee which only recognises men and women means, well, there's only men and women, and there IS no one else when it comes to gender. So I'd say it was worse.
I'm coming into this conversation quite late, but replacing Womens' Officer with 'Gender Equality' feels othering to me. It's like having an All Races Month because there are other issues besides those ones of black people. Not to mention that there seems to not be a whole lot about the genderqueer regarding this Gender Equality thing, so the title is a bit of a misnomer!
As for the magazines thing, I remember... last year? That Your Shop got flak for covering up the gay interest magazines, but no other publications with similarly exposed covers. Due to the nature of the reporting, I don't know how accurate that story was, but If that was the case, then not covering up Zoo or similar is pretty hypocritical.
Nathan, you're exactly right that genderqueer-ness (is that even a word?) is obviously a blindspot for those supporting this motion.
Your:Shop used to have to cover up all 'lad's mags' because YUSU rules said so; unforunately some employees there blundered and covered up a gay magazine with a cover of a topless man, and left another publication with a cover of a semi-naked lady uncovered. It was only one incident, but still a massive blunder. Obviously now we don't need to worry about that, since our student body has decided that semi-naked ladies adorning the top shelf of our union shop is totally cool. It's empowering. Or liberating. Or something.
You do know it's not 1911, right?
As a female I definitely feel no need for a womens' officer. Gender equality is much better, fairer.
@Anon #17
OK. Does that mean you think having a Women's Officer is unfair? I'd like to hear why. The position doesn't mean men can't create the role of Men's Officer if they feel it's needed, for example. Women's Committee deals with women's rights issues, without denying that there are other genders, and other issues. Last year, WomCom introduced the idea that the committee could include a men's rep position. None of the men thought it was needed or wanted. I wonder what you think of that?
If it's not that, I wonder then if you think the actual campaigns WomCom does are unfair? How do you envisage a Gender Equality Committee hosting 'fairer' campaigns? I haven't heard a good argument to this effect yet.
You, 'as a female', are one woman. As long as there are women who feel they are oppressed or in any way affected by gender inequality, there should be representatives to help them.
"1. The Union will change the role of the Womens Officer(s) to Gender Equalities Officer(s) to be held by two people; one must self-define as woman and the other must self-define as a man."
Firstly, gender equality. Where does "gender" start and "LGBT" begin?
"starting with why less women than men run for elected positions in the first place"
Lastly (I skipped the middle) I am very worried about the fact that there are more women authors than male authors, today. I think that because fiction is still such a massive influence on society, especially now in the age of the Kindle and increasing etext proliferation, women are dominating this field, in a way that is almost certainly supported by our current societal attitudes. I propose that everyone should feel morally obliged to correct this, and strive towards (the clearly fundamentally right) 50:50 split.
"Firstly, gender equality. Where does "gender" start and "LGBT" begin?"
Gender and sexuality intersect in important ways. But the point is trans people face specific gender inequalities and prejudices that cis-gendered people don't, therefore a GECom needs to take that into account.
If you're concerned about the lack of male authors around, I would happily support you if you wanted to write about it, or do something to address this balance.
Before you do, I would ask you to have a look at nominations for prestigious literary prizes over the last few years. Do you see more women being nominated than men? Quite the reverse. That tells me that although there may be more women's authors (can you back that up?), the people dishing out the gongs are valuing the men's work more highly. The reasons why that happens are, of course, varied, numerous, and difficult to solve.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report