Who got elected onto the union? (3 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

Both sexes is a bit iffy since there are intersex people. Male and female is better.

There should also be a requirement of at least a certain % of the vote (say 5%), regardless of gender.

 

[Plebeian]

I don't think either of those recommendations (5% minimum vote, and 5 guaranteed spots for males) are bad ideas. I don't actually think we're in any real danger of being swamped by female candidates though, in all honesty.

But they will not be competing, because they are guaranteed a position.

Not if more than 3 women run, which will happen. This is not a situation where any random woman who decides to run gets on, as your exaggeration implies. AA simply takes gender out of the equation and will (hopefully) bring in equality of nominations, leading to a more policy-focused election for all of the positions.

The initial commitment has been violated by noone but the women on campus who have refused to run, and I don't see why they should be offered guaranteed positions if they're too pussy to cop a little bit of mud.

The current election process is inherently aggressive and thus biased towards males, who are by nature more aggressive. In the absence of effective measures to make it fairer and more approachable for women (which, such as mentoring programs etc, have been tried and failed), we are left with giving women guaranteed positions on board in order to persuade them that they do have a real chance of being elected. Equal representation is required, but is not being achieved. Other attempted measures have failed to achieve this. We need to try something new and more serious, and affirmative action is it.

 

[stazi]

I am interested in this. If i consider myself a transgender person (which I do on weekends, as we all know. i heart high heels and gstrings and hairy men), and being male on my passport, but consider myself to be a woman, can I use the affirmative action principles to get into the union based on the fact that I believe that I should be a woman?

Hell, why don't they go the whole way:
6 union directors
3 women
1 gay guy
1 black guy
1 'normal' man/woman, preferably a woman. they get discrimanted against a lot.

I really can't wait to run for the board. However, I can't use going against affirmative action as a campaign yardstick. I would be considered as being sexist.

 

[stazi]

The current election process is inherently aggressive and thus biased towards males, who are by nature more aggressive. In the absence of effective measures to make it fairer and more approachable for women (which, such as mentoring programs etc, have been tried and failed), we are left with giving women guaranteed positions on board in order to persuade them that they do have a real chance of being elected. Equal representation is required, but is not being achieved. Other attempted measures have failed to achieve this. We need to try something new and more serious, and affirmative action is it.

Ah, so that's why two women won by a landslide? Due to their lack of aggression? Due to their supporters not tearing down posters and extensively campaigning for their candidates?
If all female candidates for the year are terrible, why must they get in?

 

[withoutaface]

I don't think either of those recommendations (5% minimum vote, and 5 guaranteed spots for males) are bad ideas. I don't actually think we're in any real danger of being swamped by female candidates though, in all honesty.



Not if more than 3 women run, which will happen. This is not a situation where any random woman who decides to run gets on, as your exaggeration implies. AA simply takes gender out of the equation and will (hopefully) bring in equality of nominations, leading to a more policy-focused election for all of the positions.



The current election process is inherently aggressive and thus biased towards males, who are by nature more aggressive. In the absence of effective measures to make it fairer and more approachable for women (which, such as mentoring programs etc, have been tried and failed), we are left with giving women guaranteed positions on board in order to persuade them that they do have a real chance of being elected. Equal representation is required, but is not being achieved. Other attempted measures have failed to achieve this. We need to try something new and more serious, and affirmative action is it.

Many times by leftists have I been told that an end does not justify the means (see WMD's and Saddam). In this case the means is not only discriminatory towards men, but demeaning to women.

I don't think it's that women are afraid of politics, it's that they don't want to be political. If the fact that two women got the top two positions in order of votes isn't enough to encourage the women to run, then I'm afraid to say that they don't deserve the positions because they don't want them/care enough. Politics in itself requires aggression, and without a somewhat aggressive attitude these women on board aren't going to be heard anyway.

 

[stazi]

The current election process is inherently aggressive and thus biased towards males, who are by nature more aggressive. In the absence of effective measures to make it fairer and more approachable for women (which, such as mentoring programs etc, have been tried and failed), we are left with giving women guaranteed positions on board in order to persuade them that they do have a real chance of being elected. Equal representation is required, but is not being achieved. Other attempted measures have failed to achieve this. We need to try something new and more serious, and affirmative action is it.

Ah, so that's why two women won by a landslide? Due to their lack of aggression? Due to their supporters not tearing down posters and extensively campaigning for their candidates?
If all female candidates for the year are terrible, why must they get in?

 

[ujuphleg]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Womens Honi Soit is a joke. Have a read - its enough to make any rational person puke.

I'm sick to death of the fucking feminists on campus whinging their heads off because they're women and they supposedly get discrimminated against. Men are discrimminated against as well, so are Jews, blacks, Chinese, gays, transgenders, purple spotted aliens.

Build a bridge and get the fuck over it!

This thing of having a quota for women is the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. It should only apply if there is the same conditions for men.

I don't know why I even bother writing here, cos someone is going to come along and shoot me down anyway.

 

[stazi]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Womens Honi Soit is a joke. Have a read - its enough to make any rational person puke.

I'm sick to death of the fucking feminists on campus whinging their heads off because they're women and they supposedly get discrimminated against. Men are discrimminated against as well, so are Jews, blacks, Chinese, gays, transgenders, purple spotted aliens.

Build a bridge and get the fuck over it!

This thing of having a quota for women is the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. It should only apply if there is the same conditions for men.

I don't know why I even bother writing here, cos someone is going to come along and shoot me down anyway.

i support you. no shooting for you.

 

[withoutaface]

This whole thing is ridiculous.

Womens Honi Soit is a joke. Have a read - its enough to make any rational person puke.

I'm sick to death of the fucking feminists on campus whinging their heads off because they're women and they supposedly get discrimminated against. Men are discrimminated against as well, so are Jews, blacks, Chinese, gays, transgenders, purple spotted aliens.

Build a bridge and get the fuck over it!

This thing of having a quota for women is the stupidest thing I've heard for a while. It should only apply if there is the same conditions for men.

I don't know why I even bother writing here, cos someone is going to come along and shoot me down anyway.

<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3

 

[withoutaface]

Maybe the president should have to be female in alternating years too?

 

[Plebeian]

Ah, so that's why two women won by a landslide? Due to their lack of aggression? Due to their supporters not tearing down posters and extensively campaigning for their candidates?

Firstly, maybe your name should be 4Times4thePpl given that quadruple post.

I think a fair proportion of the reason the two women polled 1 and 2 was simply the fact that they were women. Women have consistently been under-represented and so the only two women to run received large amounts of votes solely on the basis that women need a voice, apart from any of their policies (which won them other votes). Under a system of AA, more women are encouraged to run and so they will be forced to contest the elections purely on policy as the gender card can't be played.

If all female candidates for the year are terrible, why must they get in?

Do you really believe that with 47,296 (source) students, we can't find 5 capable women?

 

[stazi]

No, because everyone knows that a womans place is in the kitchen.

 

[withoutaface]

Firstly, maybe your name should be 4Times4thePpl given that quadruple post.

I think a fair proportion of the reason the two women polled 1 and 2 was simply the fact that they were women. Women have consistently been under-represented and so the only two women to run received large amounts of votes solely on the basis that women need a voice, apart from any of their policies (which won them other votes). Under a system of AA, more women are encouraged to run and so they will be forced to contest the elections purely on policy as the gender card can't be played.



Do you really believe that with 47,296 (source) students, we can't find 5 capable women?

Well evidently we didn't have more than 2 with enough balls (and at least 10 friends) this year.

 

[Plebeian]

Many times by leftists have I been told that an end does not justify the means (see WMD's and Saddam).

The end does not justify the means where the means is accepted to be wrong (eg. killing of civilians). Here, the means is not accepted to be wrong. In any case, let's not divert this discussion into Iraq.

In this case the means is not only discriminatory towards men, but demeaning to women.

What I find interesting is that overwhelmingly, the people I have heard say that "AA is demeaning to women" are men. Have you thought of asking the women whether they feel demeaned by AA? There are some who do, eg. that girl from Engo (I think she was from there) who spoke at the AGM. But the great majority seem to recognise that it is a positive support measure which is designed to help them.

W.r.t. being discriminatory towards men, would your doubts be assuaged if a provision for at least 5 male representatives was included?

 

[stazi]

Is it true that people on the union actually get paid a yearly salary?

 

[Plebeian]

Well evidently we didn't have more than 2 with enough balls (and at least 10 friends) this year.

More would be willing to run if they knew there was a higher chance of them being elected. It makes enduring the confronting political process more worthwhile.

 

[Plebeian]

Is it true that people on the union actually get paid a yearly salary?

I think there is a $2000 payment that they can choose to take if they wish. Not sure though, someone else might know better.


edit: Withoutaface, you were sitting closer to Chris than I was. What was he talking about when he contested Alex's claim that engineering was a four-year degree? Was he just talking about combined degrees?

 

[withoutaface]

Anyone can see that there was a 100% strike rate for women this year, and 2/3 in years before this. If this isn't a good enough chance then they obviously don't care enough and would be deadweight for the union.

1time4theppl: yes 14K for board and 22K for president.

 

[Xayma]

Firstly, maybe your name should be 4Times4thePpl given that quadruple post.

I think a fair proportion of the reason the two women polled 1 and 2 was simply the fact that they were women. Women have consistently been under-represented and so the only two women to run received large amounts of votes solely on the basis that women need a voice, apart from any of their policies (which won them other votes). Under a system of AA, more women are encouraged to run and so they will be forced to contest the elections purely on policy as the gender card can't be played.

Women need a voice? What makes you think that 5 will be enough to speak for all women? The best you can do is an approximation now the differences withinside a sex are so large that to say that women are the most capable of representing womens interests (which pure women interests (eg the amount of toilets) are so few only one needs to raise it) is to imply that women have very small differences between them.

The gender card would still be played, except this time the union is doing it for them. They will only be contesting the election against other women however, until that quota is fufilled only then will they be contesting against males. It has become a contest of the 3rd highest female candidate and below versus all the male candidates not all candidates (in the case of the years where 5 are elected, you can work it out for 6th).

 

[Newbie]

the gender card was used by belinda bentley in the unsw union elections

poor thing got annihilated by the 4 candidates with real policies