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.
Man Booker Prize Shortlist 2011: 4 men, 2 women http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1533
Costa Book Awards Shortlist 2011: 11 men, 9 women http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Costa_Book_Awards
Samuel Johnson Prize Shortlist 2011: 4 men, 1 woman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson_Prize#2011
etc. Which is, presumably, why the Orange Prize still exists.
Oh, of course. I was obviously aware that men win more prizes than women. However, overall, more authors are women, and more readers are women. I think is is clearly fundamentally unfair. How do you propose that we solve this and solve this problem, i.e. having a 50:50 split?
I don't have a solution to that. But I'm sure I could get you in touch with people who do, or are interested in the issue, if that's what you'd like?
"more readers are women."
this could relate to boys regularly underperforming compared to girls in school over recent years. In which case I can definitely point you in the direction of people working and writing on that issue. But then that might not relate to the problem. Who knows.
You DON'T have a solution? What is your normal solution when one gender outnumbers the other in something?
comment deleted by the author ...address the underlying issues, is my normal solution.
But I'm not an expert on education, or the gendered problem of literature in the UK (which you still haven't provided evidence for) so I don't pretend to know how to solve the underlying issues. I'm only 20.
But if the answer you're looking for is 'representation,' then, yes, I urge you to represent male authors and lead a campaign to end this discrimination against your gender which has concerned you, and made you feel that men's voices are being ignored in the literary field. Maybe then you can figure out how to deal with this issue.
Do you want me to hold your hand? Set up a male writer's group for you? Find all the relevant research for you? I'll help, but I can't do all the work.
comment deleted by a moderator Robin, I know you were. Hence the similarly sarcastic response "I urge you to represent male authors and lead a campaign to end this discrimination against your gender which has concerned you, and made you feel that men's voices are being ignored in the literary field." You were being sarcastic, but to what end? To poke fun at this whole debate. I'm not finding much of this funny, especially since I've actually had to defend my position against views like the ones you wrote above. My sense of humour has not survived.
But why DON'T you feel that the abundance of female authors is a problem? Surely, if gender equality is that important to you, you should fight both sides? But no, you seem to only get angry about issues about women, which is funny, really, seeing as you are, oh, a woman. I obviously don't think the author thing is a problem. I was just using it as an example that expecting a similar ratio in a certain job description (i.e. politics) is just unreasonable.
What do you mean, why don't I care? You've not provided any evidence, firstly. Secondly, I've said I'd be happy to support you if you wanted to campaign against the issue. You can win any argument by focussing narrowly enough, Robin - I don't have a solution to the gender bias you've identified in literature, therefore I don't care about men's issue. Rubbish.
I get angry about the fact that male rape survivors have little provisions and are often not believed, especially if their abusers are women. I get angry about the men in my life being forced to compare themselves to a ridiculous standard of masculinity, and as a result they don't talk about that pressure, because showing emotion simply isn't something we encourage men to do. Have you ever fought for those issues, Robin?
There IS a problem is there's a massive gender bias, in whatever job description. There are more female nurses than male - why? Because women are seen as more caring, nurturing, motherly etc. and male gender policing is so archaic that to be in a caring profession is to make yourself a target. These biases in certain professions reveal a hell of a lot about how we see gender roles.
Any reason why you've republished this rant again after five days? Trying to get more Yes votes? I don't think it's necessary, I find it highly unlikely that the motion will pass...
It wasn't republished, and I didn't make it happen. After the article leaves the front page, it should still be visible in the comments section. The website malfunctioned somehow, and it disappeared after leaving the front page. The editors obviously couldn't find another way to retreive the article other than put it through the whole process again.
comment deleted by a moderator
comment deleted by a moderator Just to take your last point, because I don't want to make this a massive reply, no, of course it doesn't mean you can't fight for what you want... I'm just suggesting that what you're fighting for is fundamentally immoral, based on the the other issues that are destroying the world's population. Do you not feel at all bad that the anger and polemic you clearly feel and use, is based almost enitely on your own situation? Wow, it's so uncoinciendetal that you are very angry about the fate of women in first world countries. Do you think starving people in the phillipines, sub sahara, the indian subcontintent, really give a shit about your univserity educated theories on gender? IF YOU ARE POLITICAL, THEN HELP PEOPLE. Don't just promote your own group!
comment deleted by a moderator Until it might suit me? Ohh, okay, I have a individual position that world hunger is more important than the bias towards men in first world univeristies. Bloody hell, I should write a paper on that. It might change the world.
What I mean is, your personal invective is ENTIRELY BASED on YOUR OWN SITUATION. Is is a conindince that you are so passionate about the rights of WHITE EDUCATED WOMEN (that you then expand), which, coincidentally, you ARE? Why would you fight against that when there are so many other issues you could put your own intelligence to. Dont' be selfish!
Robin. Listen. I wrote this article in direct response to a motion I disagree with. That doesn't mean I suddenly thought "Women's representation in YUSU is more important than world hunger!" and decidedd to bother everyone.
If this motion passes, I believe women's rights issues will be sidelined.
If that happens, less events like the FGm event on Monday will happen.
If that happens, there will be less oppurtunity to educate and inform people about the horrific oppression women in other countries go through.
If that happens, less people might go one to do something about it.
I am passionate about the rights of women as a whole. I'd like to see women in my own country liberated. I'd also like FGM to stop. Fighting for one doesn't mean I'm ignoring the other.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report