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

 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.

 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.

 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.

If he was democratically elected, it's rarther dubious they could change the rules afterwards to oust him.

 sebster wrote:
I understand the idea that the person best suited to represent a group's interests is somebody from that group...

 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!

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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...

 Manchu wrote:
The rule is now that the office can only be filled by a woman.

 Manchu wrote:
"Unconstitutional" is not a dirty word, Frazzled.

 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. )