SRC Election Results 2005 - the Post-Mortem (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

The idea of the Gender Issues and Equal Opportunity Officer is in some ways a compromise model. No Men's Officer, but no Women's Officer. But the basis of this policy is that I don't believe that the GI/EOO should deal with political issues. I think their main function should be to facilitate the provision and distribution of gender-specific healthcare information, and to act as a conduit between students and organisations that CAN deal with their gender-based issues. Discrimination, Harassment, Custody, whatever. Politics can be done away from the SRC.

how can governing NOT be political?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well I dunno, personally I think it does have merit in some aspects. Helping young mothers dealing with a baby + study is a great thing, not that it couldn't possibly be done by some independent group.

The representation side, I feel it is important for large distinct groups to have a voice on different matters. Now of course the womyn don't always represent all women, and the mens officer i imagine wouldn't always represent all men, but it is a step towards negotiation and understanding by both sides.

I don't believe that rooms for females to relax are fair, especially because at UWS as far as I know we don't have any rooms for anyone non-female to go to, to relax lol

edit: The problem with that, quah, is that the decisions about whether to fund a male interest or a female interest more will come down to someones decision, and there will be differences in opinion on these decisions. So it will be political.

 

[Phanatical]

how can governing NOT be political?

The SRC doesn't govern. It represents. This is NOT the Federal Government.

 

[walrusbear]

The SRC doesn't govern. It represents. This is NOT the Federal Government.

governments don't represent?

in any case, how is representation not political?

 

[Phanatical]

edit: The problem with that, quah, is that the decisions about whether to fund a male interest or a female interest more will come down to someones decision, and there will be differences in opinion on these decisions. So it will be political.

I see your point. Nevertheless, as my policy stands, any officer would be VERY limited as to what he or she could do. The alternative is that there are two Gender Issues and Equal Opportunity Officers - one of each gender. While this would effectively create a Men's and Women's Officer, the idea behind much of the renaming of SRC organisations is that they represent different paradigms. Hence why I've advocated the Education Committee to replace the Education Collective, the Environment Committee to replace the Environment Collective, and for officers like the Sexuality and Sexual Harassment officers to be merged into the Gender Issues/Equal Opportunity Office.

 

[walrusbear]

Well I dunno, personally I think it does have merit in some aspects. Helping young mothers dealing with a baby + study is a great thing, not that it couldn't possibly be done by some independent group.

The representation side, I feel it is important for large distinct groups to have a voice on different matters. Now of course the womyn don't always represent all women, and the mens officer i imagine wouldn't always represent all men, but it is a step towards negotiation and understanding by both sides.

I don't believe that rooms for females to relax are fair, especially because at UWS as far as I know we don't have any rooms for anyone non-female to go to, to relax lol

edit: The problem with that, quah, is that the decisions about whether to fund a male interest or a female interest more will come down to someones decision, and there will be differences in opinion on these decisions. So it will be political.

don't large distinct groups represent a majority, and thus hold a very prominent representation?

 

[walrusbear]

I see your point. Nevertheless, as my policy stands, any officer would be VERY limited as to what he or she could do. The alternative is that there are two Gender Issues and Equal Opportunity Officers - one of each gender. While this would effectively create a Men's and Women's Officer, the idea behind much of the renaming of SRC organisations is that they represent different paradigms. Hence why I've advocated the Education Committee to replace the Education Collective, the Environment Committee to replace the Environment Collective, and for officers like the Sexuality and Sexual Harassment officers to be merged into the Gender Issues/Equal Opportunity Office.

do you make this stuff up as you go along?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Are gays the majority? No.
Are they a large distinctive group with a different innate perspective? Yes.

Are women the majority? Well, Yes.
Are they a large distinctive group with a different innate perspective? Yes.
Do they therefore deserve representation? Yes, you need to represent the majority.

etc etc

By the way, how well are transexuals represented at usyd?

 

[Phanatical]

governments don't represent?

in any case, how is representation not political?

I find it hard to believe you don't already see my point. It's not that hard to understand. I draw a distinction between government and student representation, because the SRC has no power to enforce a directive over a student. The SRC's job is not to act as a Government, but as a body of students from all over the university to offer alternative ideas and solutions to the University with an emphasis on student welfare and wellbeing.

 

[Phanatical]

do you make this stuff up as you go along?

Sometimes I do. I am responding to the feedback of a fellow student, and building a policy that I had not previously given sufficient thought. Like any good musician, I am improvising - and using the ideas that I've come up with to build upon in my more structured work. Nevertheless, the Gender Issues and Equal Opportunity Officer, and the Committee structure plan are points that I have raised in the past - and in fact are still downloadable from my campaign website.

 

[walrusbear]

Are gays the majority? No.
Are they a large distinctive group with a different innate perspective? Yes.

Are women the majority? Well, Yes.
Are they a large distinctive group with a different innate perspective? Yes.
Do they therefore deserve representation? Yes, you need to represent the majority.

etc etc

whilst perhaps women do represent a majority of numbers on campus (not certain, someone said it earlier), i'm not so sure that's represented in the social environment
i'm not overly averse to a men's officer with help for men's issues, but i hardly see the point. would it change lower grades and less population?

 

[walrusbear]

I find it hard to believe you don't already see my point. It's not that hard to understand. I draw a distinction between government and student representation, because the SRC has no power to enforce a directive over a student. The SRC's job is not to act as a Government, but as a body of students from all over the university to offer alternative ideas and solutions to the University with an emphasis on student welfare and wellbeing.

but issues of 'ideas' and 'solutions' and 'welfare' and 'wellbeing' are all inherently political

EVERYTHING is political, dude
stop pretending you have some neutral stance, because you don't.

 

[Phanatical]

You're right - I don't have a neutral stance. I do, however, believe that the SRC should represent ME as much as it represents YOU. That's why an apolitical approach is required. We must build upon the common ground that MOST students share to represent students. And there is no more common ground than the fact that we are all STUDENTS, here to develop as academics and as people.

 

[walrusbear]

You're right - I don't have a neutral stance. I do, however, believe that the SRC should represent ME as much as it represents YOU.

what's your point??

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well the lower grades / less population thing it could perhaps help with.
Let me give you an example;

I recieved a whole bunch of scholarship letters over the holidays, and I looked through them to see the criteria. After looking at all of them I came to the conclusion that the only people who cannot get a scholarship are straight white males who's parents are not poor. Surely something should be done about that? Maybe if men had proper representation something would be at least said....

As for lower grades, having a support network for males, where you can get together with a bunch of open friendly guys (please don't suggest the queer space ) and help each other with your study, might help males (just as it is claimed it helps females).

But I doubt too much could be done on that front, as I see it as more of a problem of what is being taught and how grades are allocated as much as it is the "do it yourself" male character.

 

[walrusbear]

I recieved a whole bunch of scholarship letters over the holidays, and I looked through them to see the criteria. After looking at all of them I came to the conclusion that the only people who cannot get a scholarship are straight white males who's parents are not poor. Surely something should be done about that? Maybe if men had proper representation something would be at least said....

that seems like a different issue
what are the scholarships??
there may well be a reason that most applicable candidates are poor.. not sure

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well there are heaps of them.
One of them that caught my eye was one for 'females in traditionally male dominated courses'. Not every criteria was 'poor', which is a fine condition if you ask me for giving someone a scholarship.

 

[Phanatical]

what's your point??

My point is that while our SRC continues to advocate things like "equality for women" by discriminating against me as a male, supporting terrorist organisations like Falun Gong, spending SRC resources on protests against police brutality (like Today's protest, for example) and on the campaign for candidates in the UTS student association, and refusing to assist me in my own issues, that there are students like you who actually believe that this is a GOOD thing.

I pay the same as any other student, despite the fact that I am on a different campus and don't even get access to the common services that all students at USYD are supposed to have. I want fair and equal representation. I want my money to contribute to a university community that I can actually be a part of. And I don't want my representative organisation fighting against what I believe.

 

[walrusbear]

Well there are heaps of them.
One of them that caught my eye was one for 'females in traditionally male dominated courses'. Not every criteria was 'poor', which is a fine condition if you ask me for giving someone a scholarship.

if the course is male dominated, why does that matter then?

it's still in the aim of assisting a minority within a certain context

 

[Phanatical]

Well there are heaps of them.
One of them that caught my eye was one for 'females in traditionally male dominated courses'. Not every criteria was 'poor', which is a fine condition if you ask me for giving someone a scholarship.

It's bullshit. I generally like to ask in situations like this - who is more advantaged? Rose Jackson or Andrew Quah?

Jackson: Female, White Australian heritage. Law/EcoSocSci III. Lives in Newtown, formerly of Double Bay. Of an economically advantaged background. Mother is Liz Jackson, Former barrister and journalist and current host of Media Watch.

Quah: Male. Malay Chinese heritage. Arts/MusicStudies III. Lives in Greystanes, in the Western Suburbs. Of an economically Disadvantaged background.

I want to know why Rose is considered more deserving of ANY advantage, much less a hardship scholarship, based on her gender. Why should she get preferential treatment in certain courses on the basis of her gender, where I wouldn't?

Fact: I am more disadvantaged in Australian society than Rose Jackson. Yet Rose gets access to preferential treatment because she (I assume) doesn't have a penis.