Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/04/14 18:27:15
Subject: Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.
2015/04/14 18:48:26
Subject: Re:Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
2015/04/14 20:43:44
Subject: Re:Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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
2015/04/14 20:54:55
Subject: Re:Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/14 20:59:18
2015/04/14 21:01:37
Subject: Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2015/04/14 21:23:22
Subject: Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.
2015/04/14 21:34:58
Subject: Male student elected as women's officer at University of Tasmania resigns following public backlash
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.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 22:04:43
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.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
) 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.
