A Victory for Feminism
This throw back position born out of eighties political correctness is as insulting as it is useless. May this rallying cry ring out across those leftier CF branches that still have them and across the Student Unions of the country.
Sound stuff from Miss Samuel.
Posts
10 comments:
Greater Manchester CF is hardly a 'leftie' branch. The women's officer was created last year by the executive as a result of complaints by one (female) member who thought there should be female representation on the executive.
She was appointed, never showed up for meetings and has since defected to the Greens.
The vote to abolish the position was unanimously passed (with a couple of abstentions).
I've always been tempted to stand as Women's Officer at university and then proceed to do nothing all year. Unfortunately as a man i'd be discriminated from standing in the first place. Maybe we should lobby for Men's Officers everywhere...
This is awesome,women have to many right already. Lets halt the breakdown of traditional family values!
think you miss the point there somewhat anonymong
"Born" in this context, as the past participle of a metaphorical birth having taken place in the 1980s, should be spelt "borne".
Obviously judging by this, and the story dominating The Sun's front page, Edinburgh University doesn't teach its graduates how to spell...
I'm pretty sure abolishing Woman's officer was more about ridding GMCF of patronising and redundant positions, rather than encouraging Women to get married and have children...
Pedant 11.34: You are confusing two senses of the verb 'to bear' and applying the wrong rule.
bloody love natalie samuel
Hi there, just thought I'd weigh in here since I was GMCF Chairman at the time we introduced this position (and had demitted office earlier on in the evening), and I thought you might be interested to hear my point of view.
As you can probably tell from the length of time between the incident and the post, this is pretty much a non-story. That's not to criticise TB for posting it, since he obviously has a legitimate viewpoint that it's his right to express, and he doubtless thought this incident would be a handy vehicle for doing so, but I do want it to be clear that this was not an issue of controversy or rancour within GMCF. There was no bust-up at the meeting, in-fighting, factional manoeuvring or anything insidious going on - the outgoing Executive that had taken the decision was aware of Miss Samuel's intention to bring the motion (although it had not been officially informed), and made no move to prevent her. All that happened was that the executive under my chairmanship implemented an idea that came from one of its members, the wider area membership decided it didn't care to continue with the idea, and duly voted at the AGM for its discontinuation. That's how an organisation is supposed to work, and if I may say so we should be a healthier Party if all of our organs proved capable of acting so maturely.
But if I may also just defend the former Executive's original decision in creating the position in creating the position, the context we were operating in was one where there was, and is, a serious gender imbalance in participation in the area, with very few ladies involved. Some may argue that the gender of our members is irrelevant, and I would agree them, except to point out that any additional effort aimed at recruiting more female members would have had the happy effect of increasing our overall membership, whilst not in any way compromising the position of the men. Having settled on this objective we felt that as we as an Executive were all males, what we needed was a female perspective to help us accomplish it. We had, in effect, made an honest appraisal of our skillset as a group, identified a gap and taken steps to address it. We therefore took an informal decision to co-opt a Womens' Officer. We did not attempt to amend our constitution - the only reason the position appeared on the ballot at the AGM was to give the incoming Executive the option of formalising the position with someone in-post, if they so desired. Nor did we formally consult the membership, since as far as we were concerned our decision that our group had a particular need that we needed to fulfil, was entirely a matter for us; we knew very well that the membership had the right to elect or not elect a Womens' Officer to our successor Executive exactly as they chose, and could express their views on the matter then.
As it was, the officer co-opted did not make the sort of impact in the role for which we had hoped. You might very well argue that was my fault for failing to manage my team effectively, but all I'll say is that my attempts to manage the situation proved fruitless. I should also add that whilst the Executive was mindful of the possibility of this particular officer stepping forward to volunteer for the role, and at that stage had no reason to be displeased with that possibility, we were certainly not under any external pressure from the lady concerned nor from anyone else, and any suggestion otherwise is a calumny.
In summary, please do not believe there's anything un-Conservative about the views or actions of the members of that Executive, including me. I believe we acted perfectly correctly at all times, and that the incident considered as a whole is to the credit of GMCF. I think an area having more active members would be a good thing, I think it is more difficult for an all-male Executive to cater to female tastes in order to grow active membership, and I think the more members we have, the greater contribution we'd be able to make to freeing this country from the clutches of this wretched Labour government.
Now let's get back to that, eh?