A MALE university student has stepped down from his position as women’s officer at the Tasmania University Union (TUU), after students campaigned for a woman to be put in the role instead.
James Ritchie claims he was “democratically and constitutionally elected” to the role at the northern campus in student by-elections last month.
But a change.org petition started by the University of Tasmania’s Women’s Collective this week called for Mr Ritchie to be disqualified or resign. The petition attracted more than 1,000 signatures.
“In what have historically been male-dominated institutions, with a persistently patriarchal culture, it is important that women’s rights, needs, interests and concerns in the university context are voiced through someone elected to directly represent them,” the petition reads.
In a statement announcing his resignation on Wednesday, Mr Ritchie wrote he has been ridiculed for standing up for women’s rights and is “speechless at the hatred” directed towards him.
“It breaks my heart to see the bitterness and unwillingness to engage in mature and rational debate about women’s issues. I may not be a woman, but I am under no illusions as to the challenges women face,” he wrote.
TUU President Heidi La Paglia told news.com.au the job description did not specify the role had to go to a woman.
“It didn’t include the original clause, which was that the candidate must sign a statutory declaration to say they identify as a woman,” Ms La Paglia said. That was a mistake, she confirmed to news.com.au.
On Tuesday, the TUU student council agreed the clause should exist in the job description and the position should be held by a woman.
This decision upholds a 2000 ruling by the university’s Anti-Discrimination Officer that the Women’s Officer must identify as a woman “on the grounds that the role exists to advocate for women as a group who experience oppression in relation to men,” the change.org petition states.
Ms La Paglia says the female student body wants to be represented by a woman, not a man.
“Because the position is a representative position, it does need to be held by someone who represents women.
“I’m sure [Mr Ritchie’s] intentions were good and it’s great that he wants to stand up for women. But there are other ways to do it.
“There’s a difference between standing up for women’s issues and taking a women’s representative position.”
Mr Ritchie said his capacity to address issues such as women’s safety on campus and greater female participation is now limited.
“The awareness campaigns I intended to run surrounding domestic violence, sexual violence and particularly the #HeForShe campaign would now be ... problematic.”
Mr Ritchie said women’s issues needed to be faced with the support of men, citing Emma Watson’s now famous UN speech.
“Emma Watson called for male leadership in addressing women’s issues and ... expressed that men are not the problem but rather the solution.
“What kind of example and precedent does this set for other men interested and eager to speak out against female discrimination and injustice?” Mr Ritchie said.
Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissioner Robin Banks told AAP there was no legal reason why a man could not occupy the role of women’s officer.
Mr Ritchie could not be reached for comment. The UOT Women’s Collective has been contacted for comment.
Mr Ritchie’s full resignation letter can be read here.
What do you think? Can a man be appointed to a role representing women? Comment below and let us know.
rebecca.sullivan@news.com.au
So this popped up when i was lurking on reddit.
So what does dakka think?
was the words of HeForShe lost or should men always take the back seat when it comes to equality in the genders?
It's clear that all people who want him removed are sexists.
On the other hand, though, you're better off with a woman because she's a woman. It's the same as if a white would represent the black community...it's about representation / identification and thus you're better off picking someone who fits the image.
I feel like he won an election (absent evidence otherwise) free and fairly, and if some students aren't happy about that, they should address it in the next election, because that is how it should work.
Sigvatr wrote: On the other hand, though, you're better off with a woman because she's a woman. It's the same as if a white would represent the black community...it's about representation / identification and thus you're better off picking someone who fits the image.
Indeed. Incidentally, 47 years there's been 20 ministers for Indigenous Affairs, and the count is 19 white people and 1 dude with an aboriginal grandmother (Mal Brough, if anyone is interested).
So compared to that, I don't think there's much argument to get too worked up about one position in a student union.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I feel like he won an election (absent evidence otherwise) free and fairly, and if some students aren't happy about that, they should address it in the next election, because that is how it should work.
It's an extremely minor role in a student union. There's an outside chance he was the only person who voted.
If the female student body don't want him there as claimed, how was he democratically elected?
It's possible that it resulted from men voting but it would be a funny sort of democracy where men could vote for the women's representative but men could not stand for the position because it's apparently nothing to do with them anyway. Unless interest in student politics is really low I don't believe you could organise enough people to troll vote for a man into the position either. Where were all the dissenting voices when he stood for election? Didn't anyone care? If not then, why now? Doesn't add up.
If he was democratically elected, it's rarther dubious they could change the rules afterwards to oust him. But that's politics, I've seen student politics before, shenanigans and obvious self interest or outright bloody mindedness just to push a particular agenda, one day they'll be running the country.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's possible that it resulted from men voting but it would be a funny sort of democracy where men could vote for the women's representative but men could not stand for the position because it's apparently nothing to do with them anyway. Unless interest in student politics is really low I don't believe you could organise enough people to troll vote for a man into the position either.
Interest in student politics is very low, yes. I can't speak for UTT specifically, but generally there's an incestuous collection of lefties who roll on from year to year, occasionally upset by an injection of first year rightwing ideologues that typically give up the first time they have to study for mid-terms. Most students only know they exist because they sometimes venture out to hand out pamphlets about something or other, and everyone has to walk past avoiding eye contact unless they talk to you.
And it wasn't a troll vote. The guy seemed to want to honestly serve in the position, and seemed genuinely upset at the backlash.
If he was democratically elected, it's rarther dubious they could change the rules afterwards to oust him.
No-one changed any rules. People complained, and the guy thought the best thing was to resign. Which is understandable, given the backlash and media attention it would have been hard to serve in the position.
Really the only thing worth discussing is the backlash. I understand the idea that the person best suited to represent a group's interests is somebody from that group... but if it didn't work out that way one time is the best option to hound a well-intentioned volunteer until they quit. I'd say pretty obviously not, but well, this is student politics, I'm sure something even stupider will happen somewhere tomorrow.
sebster wrote: I understand the idea that the person best suited to represent a group's interests is somebody from that group...
That argument hinges on the assumption that no one outside that particular group can understand their particular situation, that this outsider would not have the intellectual or empathical ability to put him- or herself in the group's shoes.
Sometimes being empathetic is enough, sometimes it isn't; pretending to be A isn't always the same as actually being A. Oh world why must you be so complex instead of simple?
Two things pop out at me.
1. They have universities in Tasmania? How do they survive the Tasmanian Devil?
2. When I saw this "University of Tasmania’s Women’s Collective" I got scared. Someone hold me!
Frazzled wrote: Two things pop out at me.
1. They have universities in Tasmania? How do they survive the Tasmanian Devil?
2. When I saw this "University of Tasmania’s Women’s Collective" I got scared. Someone hold me!
Being a man who supports women's rights you get queer treatment from both sides
Men because you are seen as both a traitor and as less of a man or somehow seen as someone who is just doing it for the sex.
Women because the sex thing above, but also because you don't seemy to have a dog in the fight, when you could very well do.
Ouze wrote: I feel like he won an election (absent evidence otherwise) free and fairly, and if some students aren't happy about that, they should address it in the next election, because that is how it should work.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a man who supports women's rights you get queer treatment from both sides
Men because you are seen as both a traitor and as less of a man or somehow seen as someone who is just doing it for the sex.
Women because the sex thing above, but also because you don't seemy to have a dog in the fight, when you could very well do.
I have a solution. Act like if anyone even looks at you funny you'll bite their face off, and no one will mess with you. Let TBone the Magnificent show you the way...
Howard A Treesong wrote: It's possible that it resulted from men voting but it would be a funny sort of democracy where men could vote for the women's representative but men could not stand for the position because it's apparently nothing to do with them anyway. Unless interest in student politics is really low I don't believe you could organise enough people to troll vote for a man into the position either.
Interest in student politics is very low, yes. I can't speak for UTT specifically, but generally there's an incestuous collection of lefties who roll on from year to year, occasionally upset by an injection of first year rightwing ideologues that typically give up the first time they have to study for mid-terms. Most students only know they exist because they sometimes venture out to hand out pamphlets about something or other, and everyone has to walk past avoiding eye contact unless they talk to you.
And it wasn't a troll vote. The guy seemed to want to honestly serve in the position, and seemed genuinely upset at the backlash.
If he was democratically elected, it's rarther dubious they could change the rules afterwards to oust him.
No-one changed any rules. People complained, and the guy thought the best thing was to resign. Which is understandable, given the backlash and media attention it would have been hard to serve in the position.
Really the only thing worth discussing is the backlash. I understand the idea that the person best suited to represent a group's interests is somebody from that group... but if it didn't work out that way one time is the best option to hound a well-intentioned volunteer until they quit. I'd say pretty obviously not, but well, this is student politics, I'm sure something even stupider will happen somewhere tomorrow.
I thought they wanted to retroactively apply a 'women only' clause that hadn't been included. I don't understand why this wasn't addressed earlier in the election process and before he won the position.
Ouze wrote: I feel like he won an election (absent evidence otherwise) free and fairly, and if some students aren't happy about that, they should address it in the next election, because that is how it should work.
My thoughts exactly.
Well we all know any actual election was probably voted on by 7 people, all of whom are probably involved and trying to improve their resume. No one in university actually pays attention to student elections. That takes away from other far more important priorities, like spring break in Padre.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a man who supports women's rights you get queer treatment from both sides
Men because you are seen as both a traitor and as less of a man or somehow seen as someone who is just doing it for the sex.
Women because the sex thing above, but also because you don't seemy to have a dog in the fight, when you could very well do.
I have a wife and a daughter. I have two dogs in the fight.
I agree, I have two nieces I care about alot, so I do think think it's ridiculous that a man can't help or even be a leader, or teaching other men what it really means to be a feminist.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Being a man who supports women's rights you get queer treatment from both sides
Men because you are seen as both a traitor and as less of a man or somehow seen as someone who is just doing it for the sex.
Women because the sex thing above, but also because you don't seemy to have a dog in the fight, when you could very well do.
I have a solution. Act like if anyone even looks at you funny you'll bite their face off, and no one will mess with you. Let TBone the Magnificent show you the way...
Sorly, but I follow the great chihuahua anklebiter.
Pull back the curtains of platitude and take a long look at identity politics on the ground: amateur Machiavellians scrambling for power on the pettiest scales imaginable.
Isn't this a text book case of sexism? They hate him precisely because of his gender. If the majority of student voters voted for him and wanted him in the position as opposed to say a female candidate, what's the problem?
Though that begs the question - who's eligible vote for the woman's rep position - is it just female students? Or do all students, males included, get vote? And is such a position really necessary? Doesn't it's existence risk polarising students along gender lines?
As for my own experience with student politics...I let my Student Union membership lapse after my first year, never once voted and binned any electoral material. I had more important and interesting things to spend my time on than popularity contests. (Miniature wargaming mostly. )
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Isn't this a text book case of sexism? They hate him precisely because of his gender. If the majority of student voters voted for him and wanted him in the position as opposed to say a female candidate, what's the problem?
Though that begs the question - who's eligible vote for the woman's rep position - is it just female students? Or do all students, males included, get vote? And is such a position really necessary? Doesn't it's existence risk polarising students along gender lines?
As for my own experience with student politics...I let my Student Union membership lapse after my first year, never once voted and binned any electoral material. I had more important and interesting things to spend my time on than popularity contests. (Miniature wargaming mostly. )
yes, it is sexist, and it is discriminatory,
had the roles been reversed, with a female being excluded from holding a position that dealt with male rights, it would be called out as such.
however, its a male, so its ok to discriminate based on gender.
Maybe if a transgender woman (genetic male) ran it would cause some flakk if they asked her to resign,
but as it is, its just another notch on the long list of double standards.
If he did a good job, he should keep it, free from pressure to resign.
Jobs dont get to say "men only" so when things crop up with "female only" requirements, it should be alarming to anyone with legitimate concern over gender equality.
Manchu wrote: "Unconstitutional" is not a dirty word, Frazzled.
it very much is. If you accept federal funds, you cannot do stuff like that.
Yes you can. Sexism vs. men is totally okay.
Unfortunatly this is the systemic and legally reinforced status quo in this day and age.
Not only is sexism towards men ok, even talking about it is discouraged, its not considered a problem (often its considered a positive thing) and makes one a target of ridcule/more sexism.
If this is what the students think now, I'm seriously waiting with bated breath for the change to the Australian constitution in 20 years time that says a prime minister of Australia has to be an intransition-transexual.
Crablezworth wrote: He could have been an undercover operative of the patriarchy.
This argument was actually made, no joke.
Seriously? I got to take class in an all ladies college (wife worked there so spouses could take classes and I was waiting on USICS permission to work) and was the only male in the building. I'm grateful I didn't have to contend with those attitudes
He described allegations that standing for election was a cynical plot to by Young Liberals as "cheap" and "irrelevant" and had deflected from the issues that needed addressing.
Tasmania's Young Labor president Adam Clarke accused the Young Liberal-dominated representative council of playing politics with the position.
"This whole nonsense around the women's officer position at the northern UTAS campus has come about because the Young Liberals see it as their plaything," Mr Clarke said in a statement.
"It's very sad and troubling to see how the youth of the liberal movement view women's rights."
Manchu wrote: "Unconstitutional" is not a dirty word, Frazzled.
it very much is. If you accept federal funds, you cannot do stuff like that.
Yes you can. Sexism vs. men is totally okay.
Unfortunatly this is the systemic and legally reinforced status quo in this day and age.
He was white too! Just another card stacked against him in this unfair game that is life. I just hope he isn't Christian, one can only imagine how he'd deal with that triple-slam-dunk of oppression. I can only imagine the bravery and strength it takes every day to face a system that does everything it can to hold one back as a white man. It must be so nerve-wracking knowing every day that people like oneself are struggling against the status quo and laws that barely considers them citizens. We just have to hope that someday, somehow a white man might reach position of power and respect. I know it seems like a dream now but every important change in society started as the dream of some noble soul.
Manchu wrote: "Unconstitutional" is not a dirty word, Frazzled.
oh yes it is. But in this instance since we're dealing with a foreign devil school (get it...devil...Tasmania... ) I'll add: unethical; sexist; misogynistic; anti-feminist; and just plain bad form. While I care less about the guy (he's just padding a resume as they all are), mandating that this be a female only position goes against the fundamental doctrinal view of equality, not preference.
This makes feminism just another special interest group.
Chongara wrote: He was white too! Just another card stacked against him in this unfair game that is life. I just hope he isn't Christian, one can only imagine how he'd deal with that triple-slam-dunk of oppression. I can only imagine the bravery and strength it takes every day to face a system that does everything it can to hold one back as a white man. It must be so nerve-wracking knowing every day that people like oneself are struggling against the status quo and laws that barely considers them citizens. We just have to hope that someday, somehow a white man might reach position of power and respect. I know it seems like a dream now but every important change in society started as the dream of some noble soul.
Thankyou, that was quite refreshing.
Tasmania's Young Labor president Adam Clarke accused the Young Liberal-dominated representative council of playing politics with the position.
"This whole nonsense around the women's officer position at the northern UTAS campus has come about because the Young Liberals see it as their plaything," Mr Clarke said in a statement.
"It's very sad and troubling to see how the youth of the liberal movement view women's rights."
He was a Young Liberal? Yeah, I remember my Uni days, I can't possibly imagine how anyone could question his sincerity.
When male-identifying student James Ritchie resigned from his position as the University of Tasmania's Women's Officer last week, he did so in the most petulant way possible.
After first making comments about the oppression of Muslim women (note: minimising the very real concerns of Australian women by comparing them to other "more" oppressed women, is probably not the best way to convince us that you care about the issues we face), Ritchie lashed out at the "bitterness" and lack of "mature and rational debate" exhibited by his critics.
In other words, he did what society has always done: dismiss women as too emotional and irrational to be taken seriously. Ritchie clearly feels he has been unfairly driven from his position. What he fails to appreciate is that, in a society where most leadership positions are still held by men, he was not only taking one that could and should be filled by a woman, he was doing so in a role that was specifically designed to counteract male privilege and help women navigate the male-centred environment in which they live.
That a privileged white male, a member of the Young Liberals no less, can be elected to a position designed to create a safe space for marginalised women is a testament to how far off track the drive to engage men in feminism has become.
Yes, it is important to have male allies. Yes, they can even call themselves feminists if they so desire. No, they must not be in leadership positions.
Feminism cannot and will not challenge our male dominated society by imitating it.
In the effort of so many women to attract men to feminism, we are unintentionally replicating the structures of our own oppression. The world at large privileges male voices. At every turn, we are conditioned to believe men are more rational, more objective, more powerful; that men should lead and women should follow.
Feminists cannot hope to challenge this perception if we allow men to drown out our voices in our own movement. This, sadly, is the inevitable consequence of so many initiatives that attempt to engage men, such as Male Champions of Change and He4She. As well as rewarding men simply for acknowledging that human rights apply to women, they also perpetuate the centring of male voices.
Too often male allies will claim that, because they believe in 'equality', they should be afforded as much say as women within feminist circles. That if feminism is about equality then it should give equal space to male voices and perspectives.
Last year, Charles Clymer, a self-identified male feminist who used to run the Facebook page 'Equality for Women', was given a Good Guy Award by the National Women's Political Caucus in the US. When some women who had been ridiculed and banned from his page objected, he, like James Ritchie, also lashed out.
One woman who had warned moderators on his page that, "male authority over women is male privilege," was told that she had "idiot privilege," and that having a vagina did not give her "magic powers of perception". Maybe not, but being a woman certainly gives her more insight into the challenges women face. Including how it feels to be silenced and overshadowed by men.
Tellingly, Clymer's answer to male privilege appears to be more male privilege. "To say that men can't be feminist leaders is eliminating half our potential talent in this movement but also losing an opportunity to attract more men into the fight for women's rights," he said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "Sadly, many men need to see other men in feminism to feel comfortable."
Let's be clear about this. If attracting men means centring male voices, then this is not feminism but just another space where men can – and will – exert authority.
"With Equality for Women, I want to provide a safe space for persons of all genders (who believe in women's rights) to encourage each other in their activism," Clymer continued.
But this is the very problem – to counteract the wider culture that already gives far more space to men, feminist spaces must not only give the bulk of theirs to women but they must be safe for women. When we focus only on achieving 'equality' by giving everyone an equal say, we deny that our social and political system does not treat everyone equally.
This isn't just true for women's rights. Anti-racism, for instance, suffers when post-racial fantasies about colour blindness overshadow discussions about the very real discrimination people of colour face.
"Because we are all equal," the popular thinking goes,"then any mention of race is in itself racist." The consequence is that white people – the most privileged racial group in our society – come to regard initiatives such as Equal Opportunity and work quotas, not as the vital attempts to level the laying field that they really are, but as unfair discrimination designed to rob white people of their rightful place.
Like racism, women's oppression is not an accident. It is the intended result of deliberate policies and systems designed to privilege (mostly white) men. Regardless of whether they believe women deserve better and whether they identify as feminists or not, men have a privilege in society that women do not share and to permit this privilege to be extended to the point where they take over the very movement designed to eliminate this privilege is setting us up for failure in the most ironic way possible.
Like many men, James Ritchie may well be sympathetic to women's issues. But sympathy is not enough. Only women can know what it means to navigate the world as a woman. A world where women are routinely killed by their partners while society barely bats an eye, where we are relentlessly expected to modify our behaviour to stave off sexual assault, and where an unsuccessful pregnancy can land us in jail.
Men can help us but only women can lead the movement that will eventually take us out of the wilderness of this oppression. Anything else is just more of the same.
This bit in particular I found troublesome, bold emphasis mine:
That a privileged white male, a member of the Young Liberals no less, can be elected to a position designed to create a safe space for marginalised women is a testament to how far off track the drive to engage men in feminism has become.
Yes, it is important to have male allies. Yes, they can even call themselves feminists if they so desire. No, they must not be in leadership positions.
Feminism cannot and will not challenge our male dominated society by imitating it.
In the effort of so many women to attract men to feminism, we are unintentionally replicating the structures of our own oppression. The world at large privileges male voices. At every turn, we are conditioned to believe men are more rational, more objective, more powerful; that men should lead and women should follow.
Feminists cannot hope to challenge this perception if we allow men to drown out our voices in our own movement. This, sadly, is the inevitable consequence of so many initiatives that attempt to engage men, such as Male Champions of Change and He4She. As well as rewarding men simply for acknowledging that human rights apply to women, they also perpetuate the centring of male voices.
Too often male allies will claim that, because they believe in 'equality', they should be afforded as much say as women within feminist circles. That if feminism is about equality then it should give equal space to male voices and perspectives.
I identify as a feminist because I truly believe in gender equality, but if my first exposure to feminism was this article I think I'd label myself anti-feminist purely on the hostility that it shows towards male supporters of feminism. While I understand the author's position to a degree, mainly that lived experience is different than academic experience, surely men can offer something more to the feminist movement than supportive allies who stand in the background and say nothing? The bold sentences at the end are really bothersome for me. The implication that feminism is for women only and not men, runs counter to mainstream feminist rhetoric that I am familiar with, and plays exactly into the fears and arguments of those opposed to feminism.
I am starting to agree with mattyrm, perhaps a "feminist Pope" i.e. a central voice to the movement, needs to be a thing, just so that there is a consistent message about feminism's goals because views like the author's strike me as extremely counter productive.
Pendix wrote: I can't possibly imagine how anyone could question his sincerity.
Maybe you could fill in us foreigners on the partisan dynamics here?
I've seen non-Aussie media outlets do this when discussing our federal politics, to avoid confusion, so I'll do the same to clear up: "He's a member of the Young Conservative Coalition"
Yes, it is important to have male allies. Yes, they can even call themselves feminists if they so desire. No, they must not be in leadership positions.
Whoever wrote this has severely lacking cognitive abilities. That sentence alone completely contradicts what feminism means. Goddarn third wave "feminism".
Pendix wrote: "He's a member of the Young Conservative Coalition"
That's what I figured from reading a bunch of article about this and researching Tony Abbot. So in my mind, I started thinking "this guys is basically a Young Republican" and I went back and re-read his statement and it doesn't sound like anything you'd (normally) hear out of the GOP. But I have seen articles, not just the one posted by DarkTraveller777, accusing Ritchie of using coded language in his resignation to belittle women and feminism. I guess that is the only argument to be made when the plain language itself contradicts what you wish it said ...
Manchu wrote: Gender restrictions on elected offices are not a path to respect for anyone.
Like we can trust a male opinion on that.
Or anything!
After all, why would a man even want to hold such an office? According to some feminists,
- to prevent women from accessing vital resources - to make women feel uncomfortable and unsafe - to deny women leadership positions - to reinforce male dominance of society
But that's men for you! (Fortunately, it's only sexist if it's a generalization about women.)
Pendix wrote: "He's a member of the Young Conservative Coalition"
That's what I figured from reading a bunch of article about this and researching Tony Abbot. So in my mind, I started thinking "this guys is basically a Young Republican" and I went back and re-read his statement and it doesn't sound like anything you'd (normally) hear out of the GOP. But I have seen articles, not just the one posted by DarkTraveller777, accusing Ritchie of using coded language in his resignation to belittle women and feminism. I guess that is the only argument to be made when the plain language itself contradicts what you wish it said ...
Don't know the guy, it's possible he may be a genuine little 'L' liberal, you do get some young people confused by the name. Honestly, for my money, he should not have stood for the position in the first place, (unless there were no female candidates, which, if "Young Liberal-dominated representative council" is an accurate description would not surprise), but I also don't think the Women's collective, should have involved change.org, and by extension, the wider Internet. It was a sure-fire way of making this guy the target of the worst types of scum, which leads to so many un-called for comments and commentary.
When male-identifying student James Ritchie resigned from his position as the University of Tasmania's Women's Officer last week, he did so in the most petulant way possible.
After first making comments about the oppression of Muslim women (note: minimising the very real concerns of Australian women by comparing them to other "more" oppressed women, is probably not the best way to convince us that you care about the issues we face), Ritchie lashed out at the "bitterness" and lack of "mature and rational debate" exhibited by his critics.
In other words, he did what society has always done: dismiss women as too emotional and irrational to be taken seriously. Ritchie clearly feels he has been unfairly driven from his position. What he fails to appreciate is that, in a society where most leadership positions are still held by men, he was not only taking one that could and should be filled by a woman, he was doing so in a role that was specifically designed to counteract male privilege and help women navigate the male-centred environment in which they live.
That a privileged white male, a member of the Young Liberals no less, can be elected to a position designed to create a safe space for marginalised women is a testament to how far off track the drive to engage men in feminism has become.
Yes, it is important to have male allies. Yes, they can even call themselves feminists if they so desire. No, they must not be in leadership positions.
Feminism cannot and will not challenge our male dominated society by imitating it.
In the effort of so many women to attract men to feminism, we are unintentionally replicating the structures of our own oppression. The world at large privileges male voices. At every turn, we are conditioned to believe men are more rational, more objective, more powerful; that men should lead and women should follow.
Feminists cannot hope to challenge this perception if we allow men to drown out our voices in our own movement. This, sadly, is the inevitable consequence of so many initiatives that attempt to engage men, such as Male Champions of Change and He4She. As well as rewarding men simply for acknowledging that human rights apply to women, they also perpetuate the centring of male voices.
Too often male allies will claim that, because they believe in 'equality', they should be afforded as much say as women within feminist circles. That if feminism is about equality then it should give equal space to male voices and perspectives.
Last year, Charles Clymer, a self-identified male feminist who used to run the Facebook page 'Equality for Women', was given a Good Guy Award by the National Women's Political Caucus in the US. When some women who had been ridiculed and banned from his page objected, he, like James Ritchie, also lashed out.
One woman who had warned moderators on his page that, "male authority over women is male privilege," was told that she had "idiot privilege," and that having a vagina did not give her "magic powers of perception". Maybe not, but being a woman certainly gives her more insight into the challenges women face. Including how it feels to be silenced and overshadowed by men.
Tellingly, Clymer's answer to male privilege appears to be more male privilege. "To say that men can't be feminist leaders is eliminating half our potential talent in this movement but also losing an opportunity to attract more men into the fight for women's rights," he said in an interview with the Huffington Post. "Sadly, many men need to see other men in feminism to feel comfortable."
Let's be clear about this. If attracting men means centring male voices, then this is not feminism but just another space where men can – and will – exert authority.
"With Equality for Women, I want to provide a safe space for persons of all genders (who believe in women's rights) to encourage each other in their activism," Clymer continued.
But this is the very problem – to counteract the wider culture that already gives far more space to men, feminist spaces must not only give the bulk of theirs to women but they must be safe for women. When we focus only on achieving 'equality' by giving everyone an equal say, we deny that our social and political system does not treat everyone equally.
This isn't just true for women's rights. Anti-racism, for instance, suffers when post-racial fantasies about colour blindness overshadow discussions about the very real discrimination people of colour face.
"Because we are all equal," the popular thinking goes,"then any mention of race is in itself racist." The consequence is that white people – the most privileged racial group in our society – come to regard initiatives such as Equal Opportunity and work quotas, not as the vital attempts to level the laying field that they really are, but as unfair discrimination designed to rob white people of their rightful place.
Like racism, women's oppression is not an accident. It is the intended result of deliberate policies and systems designed to privilege (mostly white) men. Regardless of whether they believe women deserve better and whether they identify as feminists or not, men have a privilege in society that women do not share and to permit this privilege to be extended to the point where they take over the very movement designed to eliminate this privilege is setting us up for failure in the most ironic way possible.
Like many men, James Ritchie may well be sympathetic to women's issues. But sympathy is not enough. Only women can know what it means to navigate the world as a woman. A world where women are routinely killed by their partners while society barely bats an eye, where we are relentlessly expected to modify our behaviour to stave off sexual assault, and where an unsuccessful pregnancy can land us in jail.
Men can help us but only women can lead the movement that will eventually take us out of the wilderness of this oppression. Anything else is just more of the same.
This bit in particular I found troublesome, bold emphasis mine:
That a privileged white male, a member of the Young Liberals no less, can be elected to a position designed to create a safe space for marginalised women is a testament to how far off track the drive to engage men in feminism has become.
Yes, it is important to have male allies. Yes, they can even call themselves feminists if they so desire. No, they must not be in leadership positions.
Feminism cannot and will not challenge our male dominated society by imitating it.
In the effort of so many women to attract men to feminism, we are unintentionally replicating the structures of our own oppression. The world at large privileges male voices. At every turn, we are conditioned to believe men are more rational, more objective, more powerful; that men should lead and women should follow.
Feminists cannot hope to challenge this perception if we allow men to drown out our voices in our own movement. This, sadly, is the inevitable consequence of so many initiatives that attempt to engage men, such as Male Champions of Change and He4She. As well as rewarding men simply for acknowledging that human rights apply to women, they also perpetuate the centring of male voices.
Too often male allies will claim that, because they believe in 'equality', they should be afforded as much say as women within feminist circles. That if feminism is about equality then it should give equal space to male voices and perspectives.
I identify as a feminist because I truly believe in gender equality, but if my first exposure to feminism was this article I think I'd label myself anti-feminist purely on the hostility that it shows towards male supporters of feminism. While I understand the author's position to a degree, mainly that lived experience is different than academic experience, surely men can offer something more to the feminist movement than supportive allies who stand in the background and say nothing? The bold sentences at the end are really bothersome for me. The implication that feminism is for women only and not men, runs counter to mainstream feminist rhetoric that I am familiar with, and plays exactly into the fears and arguments of those opposed to feminism.
I am starting to agree with mattyrm, perhaps a "feminist Pope" i.e. a central voice to the movement, needs to be a thing, just so that there is a consistent message about feminism's goals because views like the author's strike me as extremely counter productive.
I'm sorry, i got as far as the seconf paragraph before I gave up.
I don't see any reason why he should not have stood for election. I get that women uncomfortable with men generally for whatever reason would feel uncomfortable, solely on the basis of his gender, approaching him. But I thought that kind of sexist prejudice was the problem to begin with.
Manchu wrote: I don't see any reason why he should not have stood for election. I get that women uncomfortable with men generally for whatever reason would feel uncomfortable, solely on the basis of his gender, solely on the basis of his gender. But I thought that kind of sexist prejudice was the problem to begin with.
It would appear that to certain individuals it wholly depends on who is suffering the prejudice.
I'm sure it empowers someone, and maybe even some of them are women.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: It would appear that to certain individuals it wholly depends on who is suffering the prejudice.
The problem isn't sexism. It's that men are sexist. (Again, that's not sexist because it is a generalization about men. And even if it was sexist, as a man, I would only be proving my point.)
You know what? I say good on them for requiring the women's officer to be female. If you're going to have a position representing women, it should be filled by a woman. Now if the position was a "student's officer", that would be different. Out of curiousity, who was elected to be the men's officer?
Manchu wrote: I don't see any reason why he should not have stood for election. I get that women uncomfortable with men generally for whatever reason would feel uncomfortable, solely on the basis of his gender, solely on the basis of his gender. But I thought that kind of sexist prejudice was the problem to begin with.
The "problem to begin with"? Do you mean the problem that the 'Women's Officer' position exists to combat? To ensure that the female campus population have a voice the is specifically theirs on the Student Council? Someone who can understand, relay & represent issues pertaining specifically to that population? Presumably, 'being approachable by women' would be a necessary part of that job description.
Torga_DW wrote: You know what? I say good on them for requiring the women's officer to be female. If you're going to have a position representing women, it should be filled by a woman. Now if the position was a "student's officer", that would be different. Out of curiousity, who was elected to be the men's officer?
I hear that!
I know for a fact the PR position was filled by someone who had worked in marketing , the Vice president was a VP of a company and the president was none other than Bill Clinton.
It's a fething complete load of tosh that a representative of a sector/community needs to be of that sector/community. If that was the case we would not have career politicians like these feth sticks on the student council learning how to pull swifties using the media from a young age.
Men can't represent women and womens issues? I see why, because women are just a monolith that all has the same views and ideas. This is why men can't get it. Makes complete sense. BASTARDS!
The more I think about this the more angry I get. I expect by the end of the day my posts will be completely unintelligable [so angry i can't be fethed spelling write] (more?)
I'm quite enjoying that article. I think it's soothing my inernet rage.
Horseshoe theory, back in my day when we were hunting mammoths as opposed to Frazs' dinosaurs we were taught the political circle theory that both ends of the spectrum at extremes end up as totalitarianism.
I'm quite enjoying that article. I think it's soothing my inernet rage.
Horseshoe theory, back in my day when we were hunting mammoths as opposed to Frazs' dinosaurs we were taught the political circle theory that both ends of the spectrum at extremes end up as totalitarianism.
I feel like that's even more powerful, coming from Medium.
daed, mind explaining Mediums angle ? I spent a small amount of time surfing a few articles and found most articles were not even remotely close in tone to the one previously mentioned. I still don't get what type of viewpoint it's trying to relate to.
I cannot for the life of me fathom how gender equality is going to be achieved if one half of the population (the half with more power, as well) is supposed to just sit back and do nothing. Yes, the patriarchy being fought against will just sit back and let itself be dismantled because reasons. The entire point of fighting the patriarchal structures in society is supposed to be to break its hold on both men and women. Good luck doing that when more and more crazy stuff like that Daily Life article pushes more and more people away from wanting to have anything to do at all with feminism.
On a slightly related note, I'm getting really, really tired of Focault's legacy, or at least the ways his ideas are being applied.
Bullockist wrote: daed, mind explaining Mediums angle ? I spent a small amount of time surfing a few articles and found most articles were not even remotely close in tone to the one previously mentioned. I still don't get what type of viewpoint it's trying to relate to.
Well, what I remember from the last time I looked into them: I understand it to be more or less an invite only blogging platform trying to pass itself off as a online magazine. There are some people paid to write on it, and others who simply have the privilege, but they don't disclose who is who. One of the guys who founded it was one of the co-founders of twitter.
My personal observations of the site have been that they are pretty left leaning. I swear I've seen at least a couple articles there that are pro- current wave SJWism. I'll try to find a few examples, at some point today.
At any rate, given the fact that it's more or less a giant op-ed column, I can't help but read everything posted there with a grain of salt and feel like I have to verify most of everything I read.
On a slightly related note, I'm getting really, really tired of Focault's legacy, or at least the ways his ideas are being applied.
Can you expand on that ? curious what that intells.
Focault's works dealt with the relation between knowledge and power, and how the ability to decide what is legitimate knowledge is used as means of control. This, later, became a major influence on identity politics and the idea that since all knowledge is subjective to some extent, no one's point of view can be said to be more valid than anyone else's. Such an approach obviously makes any scientific approach based on rationalism ultimately useless, which is why I am so very tired of it. The short version is that it makes "Well, that's just like, your opinion" a valid counterargument to reasoned argumentation, which is insane.
On a slightly related note, I'm getting really, really tired of Focault's legacy, or at least the ways his ideas are being applied.
Can you expand on that ? curious what that intells.
Focault's works dealt with the relation between knowledge and power, and how the ability to decide what is legitimate knowledge is used as means of control. This, later, became a major influence on identity politics and the idea that since all knowledge is subjective to some extent, no one's point of view can be said to be more valid than anyone else's. Such an approach obviously makes any scientific approach based on rationalism ultimately useless, which is why I am so very tired of it. The short version is that it makes "Well, that's just like, your opinion" a valid counterargument to reasoned argumentation, which is insane.
And women say they don't nag... Bloody feminazis. When something doesn't go their way they bitch and moan until everyone else doesn't have the strength to either argue or resist murdering them.
The bloke was elected by democratic vote. How much more "equal," liberal and fair can you get?
Not that I can find. If it was it still wouldn't be fair or democratic.
As far as I can see, the post was like your average student council. Nominate yourself to run for the post, everyone votes. 50% +1 majority and you win.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That argument hinges on the assumption that no one outside that particular group can understand their particular situation, that this outsider would not have the intellectual or empathical ability to put him- or herself in the group's shoes.
As Ahtman rightly points out, you can empathise with another group of people completely, but that isn’t actually the same thing as being part of that group.
When I was in highschool they showed us this comedy made by some aboriginals, that ran with the idea of what it might feel like if white people were the natives here, and one day Aboriginals turned up claiming the place in the name of the Queen. It was pretty crappy, but one bit always stuck with me, and it was seeing an all-aboriginal parliament, including an aboriginal minister for white affairs. I’d never understood the argument before then, but seeing the colours reversed, it was so obvious how ridiculous it was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: What I meant was, who gives a feth whether something happening in Australia is unconstitutional in the American sense?
It’s kind of hilarious when it comes from a poster who just loves to tell others how they don’t get to comment on the US if they’re not from there.
I mean, I think the distinction is actually kind of interesting and worth bringing up, what is legal in one country but not another is worth noting. But there’s a history there that makes this kind of funny.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I cannot for the life of me fathom how gender equality is going to be achieved if one half of the population (the half with more power, as well) is supposed to just sit back and do nothing. Yes, the patriarchy being fought against will just sit back and let itself be dismantled because reasons.
An impossible task, since ultimately there will always be individual people, acting on a person to person basis, and for the forseeable future the average male will have more muscle mass than the average female.
had the roles been reversed, with a female being excluded from holding a position that dealt with male rights, it would be called out as such.
however, its a male, so its ok to discriminate based on gender.
Maybe if a transgender woman (genetic male) ran it would cause some flakk if they asked her to resign
Read the article; “It didn’t include the original clause, which was that the candidate must sign a statutory declaration to say they identify as a woman,”
While that one hypothetical can be rejected by just reading the article, I think it touches on the generally pointless approach of declaring something is bad because if hypothetically the opposite had happened then ‘other people’ would have complained. Ultimately you're being outraged by a self-created fiction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Gender restrictions on elected offices are not a path to respect for anyone.
It’s not about being a path to respect, it’s about the fairly simple idea that representative positions should have representatives who are actually part of that community.
I mean, there’s probably a lot of scope to argue whether a university student union actually needs a representative for women in this day and age, because it’s a long time since universities were a boy’s club. But if you’re going to have one, it isn’t rocket science to require it to actually be a woman.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: While I care less about the guy (he's just padding a resume as they all are)
I understand it works that way in the US, but over here employers actually couldn’t give two gaks about extra-curricular work. In Australia people join student politics because they’re grinding their way to a career in politics with one of the major parties*, or because they actually belief in the nonsense that is student politics.
*Unlike the US, almost no-one spends life in the real world away from politics and then comes in to politics. All but a handful join a student party in university, and then spend the next two or three decades at tedious committee meetings and even more tedious Sunday barbecues working their way up the totem pole, waiting for their chance. This is because we don’t have decent primary elections like you guys. It’s a real problem, and has produced very insular parties with very small talent pools.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Maybe you could fill in us foreigners on the partisan dynamics here
Youth and a deep ideological commitment rarely correlates with considered, mature world views. So the Young Liberals are fething ridiculous, but no more so than Young Labor, their opposites on the left.
Where they are different though, is in how they operate. Young Labor is prone to being hopelessly earnest and impractical, spending most of their time in student union committees putting through motions to protest treatment of refugees instead of, you know, properly managing student funds. In contract the Young Liberals are basically reactionary, they pretty much operate on the assumption that if they’re pissing off Young Labor they’re doing a good job.
That said, nothing this guy has said has made me suspect he was anything but earnest in what he wanted to do in the role.
sebster wrote: When I was in highschool they showed us this comedy made by some aboriginals, that ran with the idea of what it might feel like if white people were the natives here, and one day Aboriginals turned up claiming the place in the name of the Queen. It was pretty crappy, but one bit always stuck with me, and it was seeing an all-aboriginal parliament, including an aboriginal minister for white affairs. I’d never understood the argument before then, but seeing the colours reversed, it was so obvious how ridiculous it was.
It’s not about being a path to respect, it’s about the fairly simple idea that representative positions should have representatives who are actually part of that community.
You'd be surprised how often it actually happens, even in local government. I'll give you a recent example from where I live, where the area rep for the Shankill Road, Belfast, considered by everyone in Ireland and even the British mainland and beyond as the heart of Unionism, Loyalism and Protestantism, is somehow a member of Sinn Fein because the other areas in the electoral area are entirely Nationalist/Republican/Catholic.
This makes perfect sense to me whats the best way to show we are all equal then to be able to look in a room and know where everyone stands and who they represent then by what they look like. Black women by a black woman a white men by a white man. I see nothing wrong with separation of the races and sexes didn't we have something like that a hundred years ago worked out great didn't it.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I cannot for the life of me fathom how gender equality is going to be achieved if one half of the population (the half with more power, as well) is supposed to just sit back and do nothing. Yes, the patriarchy being fought against will just sit back and let itself be dismantled because reasons.
An impossible task, since ultimately there will always be individual people, acting on a person to person basis, and for the forseeable future the average male will have more muscle mass than the average female.
You're assuming that the majority of males would have no reason to want to change the status quo.
sebster wrote: I understand the idea that the person best suited to represent a group's interests is somebody from that group...
That argument hinges on the assumption that no one outside that particular group can understand their particular situation, that this outsider would not have the intellectual or empathical ability to put him- or herself in the group's shoes.
There is also the potential that it would raise a perceived barrier between the representative and the people he's meant to represent. There are things that women will feel a lot more comfortable talking to another woman about, due to the representatives first-hand experience of the issue or whatever. Having a man be their point of contact could result in less of these issues being brought up, which is bad for the welfare of the students.
As an example, when was the last time you saw a male radiologist performing a mammogram? In many places you never will as some women will not feel anywhere near as comfortable undergoing a painful examination which requires them to be topless and which is performed by a man. Making all mammographers male would result in less people getting screened and so less cancers being found early, resulting in more deaths.
sebster wrote: It’s not about being a path to respect, it’s about the fairly simple idea that representative positions should have representatives who are actually part of that community.
Fortunately, we have a method to fairly determine representativeness. At a predetermined time, all qualifying interested parties gather together for an election where they cast votes for candidates previously nominated to represent them. Objections as to those candidates can be raised at any time before or even during an election. It is called campaigning.
Furthermore -- if the office has nothing to do with respect, as you claim, then it effectively has no reason to exist.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Having a man be their point of contact could result in less of these issues being brought up
For some women, it is harder to talk to another woman. The tricky thing is, some women are not all women. The politics around this issue have a nasty tendency to lump all women together, which necessarily leads to lumping all men together as well. This is inherently sexist; in fact, nothing could be more sexist -- not just in the technical sense, but in the sense of a socially destructive prejudice.
Manchu wrote: Fortunately, we have a method to fairly determine representativeness. At a predetermined time, all qualifying interested parties gather together for an election where they cast votes for candidates previously nominated to represent them. Objections as to those candidates can be raised at any time before or even during an election.
Is there any country where someone can be elected as a lead representative (say, President or First Minister or Head of State or whatever) without holding the nationality of said country? And I mean can as in “It is allowed by the laws”, not just “Is it likely to happen”.
If you do not see how “Is there any country where someone can be elected as a lead representative (say, President or First Minister or Head of State or whatever) without holding the nationality of said country? And I mean can as in “It is allowed by the laws”, not just “Is it likely to happen”.” is relevant to
sebster wrote: It’s not about being a path to respect, it’s about the fairly simple idea that representative positions should have representatives who are actually part of that community.
, then I do not see it either. Maybe someone else will.
Manchu wrote: Fortunately, we have a method to fairly determine representativeness. At a predetermined time, all qualifying interested parties gather together for an election where they cast votes for candidates previously nominated to represent them. Objections as to those candidates can be raised at any time before or even during an election.
Is there any country where someone can be elected as a lead representative (say, President or First Minister or Head of State or whatever) without holding the nationality of said country? And I mean can as in “It is allowed by the laws”, not just “Is it likely to happen”.
You:
" There should be a position in the student council for women to go and complain about issues like sexism and gender discrimination...but the role should only be available for female candidates."
" There should be a position in the student council for women to go and complain about issues like sexism and gender discrimination...but the role should only be available for female candidates."
As far as I can tell, every country that elects its head of state have rules saying only citizen with the country's nationality can vote, and only citizen with the country's nationality can be elected. So I guess it might be possible to have both rules .
Again, that is irrelevant in this case. There was no rule about the candidates having to identify as women before the election. And there are no objections to the fairness of the election. The only objection is to the result, made after the fact.
But I would like to hear people's thoughts: should women be able to vote for a male representative or should that choice be denied them before hand?
" There should be a position in the student council for women to go and complain about issues like sexism and gender discrimination...but the role should only be available for female candidates."
Can you show me where I said this?
That's what you seem to imply when you tried to compare this to a national election, where the voters and candidates must be citizens of the country. It comes across to me as if you are implying that only females should be considered and only women should be allowed to vote. If I misunderstand then please forgive and correct me, but that's what I got from your post.
" There should be a position in the student council for women to go and complain about issues like sexism and gender discrimination...but the role should only be available for female candidates."
Sexism and gender discrimination.
Actually, that was what the university ruled in 2000, that the representative must identify as a woman. It was just a clerical error that that requirement was missing from the job requirement.
On Tuesday, the TUU student council agreed the clause should exist in the job description and the position should be held by a woman. This decision upholds a 2000 ruling by the university’s Anti-Discrimination Officer that the Women’s Officer must identify as a woman “on the grounds that the role exists to advocate for women as a group who experience oppression in relation to men,” the change.org petition states.
Also, considering that he resigned following a petition with support from the female student body it can hardly be claimed that he had their support or that they wanted him as their representative, for whatever reason.
So his staying in the post would have only harmed the role, not the effect he wished to have. He can still work to improve the rights of women on the university.
And perhaps you can answer this: Is it sexism and discrimination if women request a female technician to perform their mammogram as they are more comfortable with a painful and potentially embarrassing scan to be performed by a woman?
Manchu wrote: Again, that is irrelevant in this case. There was no rule about the candidates having to identify as women before the election. And there are no objections to the fairness of the election. The only objection is to the result, made after the fact.
But I would like to hear people's thoughts: should women be able to vote for a male representative or should that choice be denied them before hand?
Absolutely not. Democracy, true democracy, should allow anyone or anything to be put to a vote by anyone (assuming they fall under the jurisdiction and have citizenship for the country) and the result being indicative of the will of majority. If people found such a result so undesirable then they should use the vote they are given to vote against that particular result. If they have no vote, and it doesn't effect them, they don't have a say. If they had a vote, and didn't use it, tough. If they don't like the result despite voting against it, and the majority rule still achieves that result, they should abide by it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, considering that he resigned following a petition with support from the female student body it can hardly be claimed that he had their support or that they wanted him as their representative, for whatever reason.
The petition had about 1000 signatures. From that we can infer a few possibilities: either more than 1000 qualified voters elected Ricthie or a significant number of the petition signatories did not or were not qualified to vote. In either case, the petition cannot show that qualified voters were opposed to Ritchie holding the office at the time of the election.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Is it sexism and discrimination if women request a female technician to perform their mammogram as they are more comfortable with a painful and potentially embarrassing scan to be performed by a woman?
Yes that is sexism. Just like asking for a white person rather than black person because you are uncomfortable with black people in intimate medical situations would be racism.
Deadshot wrote: That's what you seem to imply when you tried to compare this to a national election, where the voters and candidates must be citizens of the country. It comes across to me as if you are implying that only females should be considered and only women should be allowed to vote. If I misunderstand then please forgive and correct me, but that's what I got from your post.
I did compare both situation, but I did not said what was right in both cases. It is up to you to determine if restricting who can be elected to represent a group to people of said group is a good or bad thing. But just keep in mind that if you think such a restriction is inherently bad, then it means most modern democracies are bad.
Basically this does not force the answer either way, it just gives you some more distance from the issue.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Is it sexism and discrimination if women request a female technician to perform their mammogram as they are more comfortable with a painful and potentially embarrassing scan to be performed by a woman?
Yes that is sexism. Just like asking for a white woman rather than black woman would be racism.
Then perhaps you would like to comment on the fact that all technicians who perform mammograms on the NHS are, unless specifically requested, female?
Manchu wrote: Yes that is sexism. Just like asking for a white person rather than black person because you are uncomfortable with black people in intimate medical situations would be racism.
And, i guess, like allowing only US citizen to run for U.S. presidency is xenophobic.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Then perhaps you would like to comment on the fact that all technicians who perform mammograms on the NHS are, unless specifically requested, female?
I would say that is a sexist directive typical of patriarchy.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: And, i guess, like allowing only US citizen to run for U.S. presidency is xenophobic.
How is it not xenophobic? The whole "birthers" conspiracy theory dramatically demonstrates how xenophobic it is.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Then perhaps you would like to comment on the fact that all technicians who perform mammograms on the NHS are, unless specifically requested, female?
I would say that is a sexist directive typical of patriarchy.
Really? So you think it has nothing to do with making sure that female patients are as comfortable as possible and to therefore get the most people to take part in the screening program and hence save hundreds of lives every year?
Really? So you think it has nothing to do with making sure that female patients are as comfortable as possible and to therefore get the most people to take part in the screening program and hence save hundreds of lives every year?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Really? So you think it has nothing to do with making sure that female patients are as comfortable as possible and to therefore get the most people to take part in the screening program and hence save lives?
I think the assumption that women can only be comfortable getting a medical examination from another woman reveals some deeply sexist attitudes. There is no rational basis for women generally to be uncomfortable being examined by a health care professional solely as a matter of gender. What you are pointing at is a larger issue of shame and repression of sexuality, something I would characterize as Victorian. A system that perpetuates this is necessarily sexist.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Really? So you think it has nothing to do with making sure that female patients are as comfortable as possible and to therefore get the most people to take part in the screening program and hence save lives?
I think the assumption that women can only be comfortable getting a medical examination from another woman reveals some deeply sexist attitudes. There is no rational basis for women generally to be uncomfortable being examined by a health care professional solely as a matter of gender. What you are pointing at is a larger issue of shame and repression of sexuality, something I would characterize as Victorian. A system that perpetuates this is necessarily sexist.
I just covered a course on Medical Physics at university, taught by an ex-radiologist who in fact specialised in new mammogram techniques. The reason why mammograms are carried out by female members of staff is exactly because of the reason I just said, to reduce discomfort and save lives. It is not an assumption, it is based on many studies from many countries who run these screening programs and they all found that women were more comfortable having the procedure be performed by a female technician and so more likely to opt in to the screening program.
When you're dealing with a situation where you are performing a painful procedure that can (potentially) induce fatal cancer (~1 induced for every 200 found), you need women to be as comfortable as possible to have a hope of getting as many people in the program as possible.
That women feel ashamed or embarrassed of their bodies is very bad. However you don't fix that by forcing them to undergo a painful examination carried out by someone who doesn't know how painful it is to have a breast squeezed between two plates and who the patient is uncomfortable with performing the procedure.
Manchu wrote: You did not ask and I gave no answer regarding how sexist practices should be corrected. You only asked if the practice is sexist. It is.
No, it isn't. It would be sexist to say that women have no say in who performs their examinations.
When you're dealing with a situation where you are performing a painful procedure that can (potentially) induce fatal cancer (~1 induced for every 200 found), you need women to be as comfortable as possible to have a hope of getting as many people in the program as possible.
Is that the same as when women go to have things put in their hoo-ha? I wonder if there's any discomfort or cancer potential there?
But again, that must be why all OB/GYNs are female.
Manchu wrote: You only asked if the practice is sexist. It is.
No, it isn't. It would be sexist to say that women have no say in who performs their examinations.
That would also be sexist. But positing a hypothetical alternative that is also sexist does not demonstrate that the actual practice is not sexist. Discrimination on the basis of sex is sexism. A program which builds sex-based discrimination into its practice is sexist. Is this instance of sexism ruining lives? No -- as you argue, this is a case in which sexism may be saving lives. On the other hand, it arises from and contributes to perpetuating a larger, socially destructive trend of sexism. Even in its small way, this practice tacitly teaches/reinforces that women cannot and should not trust male healthcare providers to be professional and caring.
Deadshot wrote: That's what you seem to imply when you tried to compare this to a national election, where the voters and candidates must be citizens of the country. It comes across to me as if you are implying that only females should be considered and only women should be allowed to vote. If I misunderstand then please forgive and correct me, but that's what I got from your post.
I did compare both situation, but I did not said what was right in both cases. It is up to you to determine if restricting who can be elected to represent a group to people of said group is a good or bad thing. But just keep in mind that if you think such a restriction is inherently bad, then it means most modern democracies are bad.
Basically this does not force the answer either way, it just gives you some more distance from the issue.
)
) I'll add: unethical; sexist; misogynistic; anti-feminist; and just plain bad form. While I care less about the guy (he's just padding a resume as they all are), mandating that this be a female only position goes against the fundamental doctrinal view of equality, not preference.
.