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

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

So, equality for men = being "unprogressive"?

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

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

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

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

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?

Frosty, who wrote that, do you know?

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

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the gender makeup of any political infrastructure - and instead 'observe' which gender benefits from laws inacted, repealed, amended and implemented.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.

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!

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?