Men's Officer at Hull University

**frostyboy** · 5th-October-2008

Whilst searching Google, I came across this piece from December 2007: The Men's Officer Referendum

First of all I think I need to explain why a referendum is happening. In the recently revised Constitution for Hull University Union, it states that Referenda decide union policy and the Open Policy Forums (that any student can attend) decide what goes to a referendum. A number of these happen throughout the academic year. Any policy decided by referenda lapses after three years (this means that it stops being a piece of union policy).

Now for the subject of one of the votes - the abolition of the Men's Officer. The minutes of the Open Policy Forum where this was originally proposed can be found here(November 19th) and the relevant section is below:

"For:

There is no need for a Men’s Officer as this diminished the effectiveness of all the other liberation campaigns.
Men are unfairly over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union.
Issues in the Men’s Officer remit can be easily dealt with by the Health Officer and HUSAC.

Against:

Men are discriminated against in society, for example, job quota filling and higher unemployment rates.
If there is no Men’s Officer position then there is no support for men who are victims."

It's also important to note that the National Union of Students doesn't have a Men's Officer and a lot of people within the NUS don't believe one should ever exist (I know this from my time as a sabbatical officer at HUU and the fact that the NUS Women's Officer - Kat Stark - is signed up to the Facebook group approving the abolition of the position).

Now I'll address the points raised in the Open Policy Forum.

"...diminished the effectiveness of all the other liberation campaigns."

I'm not entirely sure how this could happen. The other liberation groups are Women, LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender), Disabled Students and Black Students (those four are the NUS Liberation campaigns too). All committees/officers have clearly defined job descriptions in the student union standing orders. The Men's Offer does not represent women. That person does not represent men on issues covered by other campaigns either.

"Men are unfairly over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union."

Was the second part of that point made because the current Union Executive Committee has eight men and two women? That didn't happen because women were oppressed. In some of the previous executive committees there have been equal numbers or more women than men. For instance, in 2004/2005, there were four men and four women. In 2005/2006 there were five women and three men. The executive teams were elected because the voters felt that they had the necessary skills and experience to do the job well.

The student union also has a long-standing equal opportunities policy which states everyone can join any clubs and societies. This means that there are no instances of women being prevented from joining. Both men and women can go for executive positions in clubs and societies too . For example, the current President of the Drama Society is a Woman. The current President of the Labour club is a woman.

So, what about society? Well, first of all, the positions that are being talked about in this post do not have a responsibility for the whole of society in England (or any other country). Those positions have a responsibility to represent the relevant group(s) of students at the University of Hull. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of women in high ranking positions all over the world. For example, there is a female member of the University's Senior Management Team and there are several university departments that have senior members of staff who are female.

Outside the university, there are even more examples. Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, the Queen is our sovereign, Hillary Clinton is a potential future President of the United States. Condoleezza Rice is the US Secretary of State and Nancy Pelosi is the current speaker in the United States Congress. You might also remember Margaret Thatcher - one of our former Prime Ministers.

Remember the 'Blair Babes' from 1997 when Tony Blair was elected as the Prime Minister? There were celebrations about how many women were in positions of power. That doesn't seem like an example of women being oppressed to me.

"Issues in the Men’s Officer remit can be easily dealt with by the Health Officer and HUSAC."

Interesting point. I agree that it's logical for men's health issues to be managed by the Health Officer. However, they've defeated themselves by mentioning the Student Advice Centre (HUSAC). This is because they could also deal with some women's issues and some matters that are covered by other liberation groups. Surely this means that there is no need for a Women's Officer too!

"Men are discriminated against in society, for example, job quota filling and higher unemployment rates."

This is definitely true. In a Guardian article from 2005, it was reported that the Hansard Society felt that all-women shortlists are the only way to increase the number of women in the House of Commons. However, using all-women shortlists means that men are prevented from going for a particular position, which is a form of positive discrimination.

There are plenty of examples of women being strategically positioned around the PM during Prime Minister's Question Time to highlight the fact that Labour includes a number of women. However, preventing some men from sitting where they want because they are a man is a form of positive discrimination.

A Men's Officer is required within Hull University Union to ensure that there are no examples of positive discrimination.

"If there is no Men’s Officer position then there is no support for men who are victims."

True. What about men who are abused by women? The Women's Officer doesn't deal with that. There needs to be representation for men.

As you can tell, I believe that there should be a Men's Officer. You couldn't have one officer represented both genders so it's sensible to have one for each and then both genders feel that they have representation.

So, what do you think?

I totally agree with the person who wrote the above article, and I find it disheartening (but not at all surprising) that there is so much opposition to the position of Men's Officer.

Have a look at what Hull University's Women's Officer wrote here: Abolish HUU Men's Officer

Hull University Union is in the unprogressive position of being one of the few Unions in the UK to still have a Men's Officer. At the Open Forum on 19th of November 2007 the above motion was passed to go to referendum in December. Some of the arguments to retain the post were in the interests of 'equality.' However, this version of equality would mean that we would have to create the position of White Officer, Able-Bodied Officer and Heterosexual Officer - all of which sound absurd.

Women are under represented in many walks of life and are still discriminated against across the board. Having the position of Men's Officer totally undermines the Women's Campaign. It has been argued that a Men's Officer could deal with issues such as testicular cancer or the high male suicide rate, however, we have a Health Officer who would deal with both of these issues.

It is obvious that all the arguments for having a Men's Officer fall flat on their face, so please vote to abolish the HUU Men's Officer!

Emma Kinloch
HUU Women's Officer

So, equality for men = being "unprogressive"?

**frostyboy** · 5th-October-2008

I've just noticed this comment posted on the Abolish HUU Men's Officer site:

I notice that it was voted With 85 Votes not to abolish the HUU Men's Officer. I must admit i am very pleased. Is this goint to be the end of the matter, or are people going to continue to have a chip on their shoulder and carry on moaning?

Hence, it would appear as if Hull University is continuing to be "unprogressive".

**byslexic_danana** · 5th-October-2008

Quote from Open Policy Forum

Men are unfairly over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union.

Correction: Men are FAIRLY over-represented in both society and the structure of the Student’s Union. [/QUOTE]

Quote from Emma Kinloch, the trollop

It is obvious that all the arguments for having a Men's Officer fall flat on their face!

Yes, so obvious, because you said so, you piece of fucking vermin. I think I'll 'Facebook' this cunt.

**brian44** · 5th-October-2008

Women are under represented in many walks of life

But women are definitely over represented at university these days. Why is a female majority a good thing, but a male majority a bad thing?

Only 35% of men go on to get degrees, whereas 45% of women do. Why does she think men need less help than women? Is it payback time because the previous generation of men were more likely to get degrees?

**Percy** · 5th-October-2008

Frosty, who wrote that, do you know?

I was a Hull U in 1983. Did my MSc there.

**Celtic Druid** · 17th-October-2008

Emma Kinloch
HUU Women's Officer:

Women are under represented in many walks of life and are still discriminated against across the board.

Aside from the ubiquitous and aggressive allocation of quotas 'charitably' designated for women - in politics, media and public/govt positions. When you 'logically evaluate' any underrepresentation, say, in business. Particularly amongst directors and CEOs, it's more a product of a unwillingness to commit to insane hours, schedules, deadlines and repercussions (look at Carla Fiorina, ex CEO of Hewlett Packard) - then any genuine discrimination. Remember they are "businesses" not socialist charities. It's primarily down to womens CHOICES!

In politics one could argue in numerical terms women are underrepresented. This may be true, but to the politically savvy observer, one must look beyond the gender makeup of any political infrastructure - and instead 'observe' which gender benefits from laws inacted, repealed, amended and implemented. It is by this measure one must draw conclusions regarding discrimination. No can repudiate the vigorous gynocentric manifesto so many governments have subscribed to since their very inception. For example, the writings of philosopher Belfort Bax (1854-1926), even though also a socialist journalist - wrote (The Legal Subjection of Men) of how the government of the day chivalrously pandered to women, and how the law seemed to escape them entirely.

Feminists however, will NEVER acknowledge areas where women are overrepresented, and men underrepresented. This discrimination against men usually has in/direct governmental influence. Womens underrepresentation is generally due to, dangerous and laborious work environments that repel participation, market forces, over reliance on social sciences as degrees that hold little merit in the real world of work, individual choice, etc and that thing feminists really hate, REALITY. The vacuous and unsubstantiated cry of discrimination by feminists is the inability to grasp those very realities, and that total gender parity is neither practical nor conducive to a cohesive society.

**Dylan MacVillain** · 17th-October-2008

Of course the Women's Officer doesn't want there to be a Men's Officer: she cannot handle the competition. She must have a fragile female ego!

**brian44** · 17th-October-2008

Quote from Celtic Druid

The vacuous and unsubstantiated cry of discrimination by feminists is the inability to grasp those very realities, and that total gender parity is neither practical nor conducive to a cohesive society.

Imagine how women would feel if it was made a priority for 50% of nurses to be men in ten year's time, using male quotas to hire men. They would be so desperate to hire men, even very low quality men would get the job even if there were much better and more numerous female candidates. Remind you of anything?