GABBY VERHAGEN & JACOB RODRIGO MICHAEL SABLJAK & VIRGINIA HOLDESON Volume 10, Issue 11 At last Thursday’s MULSS AGM, the resolution to pass a gender equality provision for the First Year Representatives (“FYRs”) failed. De Minimis has decided to publish side-by-side a couple of voices from each side of the debate. The proposed amendment was to insert the following sentence into the MULSS Constitution: “Where possible the three First Year Representatives must not all identify as the same gender.”
Because I have nothing better to do at 3am
11/10/2016 03:19:14 am
Of course it's all over bar the shouting (for this year) but I'll offer another reason against the change.
On the question of representation...
11/10/2016 11:27:12 pm
Actually, I don't think it's predominantly a question of representation at all. Having different people with different perspectives on committee is important. However, I think it's more appropriate to say this is about having an equal bite of the apple.
Because I have nothing better to do at 1.46am
12/10/2016 01:46:11 am
Do your claims that it is harder to get elected as a woman really line up with reality though? It's already been stated that 2015 had three female reps and that women outnumber men in the LSS as a whole. I'll assume those statements from the authors are correct.
Again, on the question
12/10/2016 10:02:23 am
As a matter of fact, that is incorrect. In 2015 the first year reps were Rucha Sohani, Gabrielle Verhagen and Matt Caldow. To my knowledge there has never been three female first year reps. There certainly hasn't in the last 4 years, when we have had 3 men twice.
On the question (third time's a charm)
12/10/2016 10:10:11 am
Apologies, one* other woman president in the last ten years (2007).
NAME (REQUIRED)
12/10/2016 03:03:55 pm
The MULSS Website shows that over the last 30 years there have been almost equal numbers of women and men as LSS President; 15 Women and 16 Men.
True Dat
12/10/2016 04:08:58 pm
@Name (Required) thank-you for doing the research and bringing some reason to this debate. Unless the other elected positions over the past 30 years reveal information against this trend, it is clear to see that women have without AA provisions successfully been elected, I would presume because they are meritorious!
Just another Rad Fem
11/10/2016 08:43:53 am
@BECAUSE I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO AT 3AM the provision does not imply that Women cannot represent Men and vice versa. The point is that there are some topics for people within FR that they would not feel comfortable approaching Men about, last years Womens Space debate is just an example of that.
kill me
11/10/2016 10:54:10 am
"The fact that you use the female/male binary instead of Women/Men is indicative enough that Women's rights issues are not considered to their full extent."
Seriously?
11/10/2016 11:32:13 am
Female/male = your sex i.e. the biological differences of your sex organs/ hormones/chromosomes etc. It is a biological fact that you are female/male.
Seriously.
11/10/2016 11:59:55 am
I'm aware of the difference between biological sex and gender. It's presumptuous to think that someone doesn't just because they interchangeably used the words male and female, or that they're against "women's rights" just because of this. Focusing on this does a bigger disservice to feminism, by placing a ridiculous beyond-parody focus on language rather than substantive disadvantage and concerns.
Curmudgeonly old gender binaryist
11/10/2016 03:17:19 pm
"This has been an accepted difference for a long time both in social movements and the scientific and medical communities. "
anon
11/10/2016 06:33:49 pm
Please don't pretend like the whole world is as "progressive" as you are - the vast majority of us don't accept your ideological views about gender as a construct.
Thirding "seriously?"
11/10/2016 09:35:18 pm
Radical gender theory diverging from the mainstream of consensus and physical fact, and that is the subject of much dispute, should not be passed off so casually as the truth. It's when heated, emotional opinions like that get involved in drafting constitutional provisions that you get the shabby, flimsy stuff from the AGM.
Anon
13/10/2016 02:42:28 pm
@Killme
The Statistics
11/10/2016 09:40:53 pm
I urge you to understand how the counting of "abstention" votes worked in both the SGM and AGM - if done in accordance with appropriate vote counting mechanisms an abstention vote as for example adopted by UMSU and corporations, abstentions would have counted towards a "NO" vote as it is not a "YES" therefore an explicit decision not to endorse the proposed amendment - if such procedures had been followed - and they would have had to have been if on the face of it the NOs had not achieved greater than 25% - the margin would have been greater in favour of against the amendment.
Hi statistics
12/10/2016 11:08:27 am
There were very, very few abstentions. The margin would not have been substantially affected at all.
Anon
13/10/2016 02:38:52 pm
"The point is that there are some topics for people within FR that they would not feel comfortable approaching Men about, last years Womens Space debate is just an example of that."
A student
11/10/2016 11:19:09 am
Michael and Virginia, thanks for your cogent and sophisticated analysis of this issue. Great piece.
Another student.
12/10/2016 12:28:22 am
I agree.
Anon
13/10/2016 02:44:56 pm
Beyond the hyperbole over the merits of gender quotas and affirmative action, your focus on the legal operation of the clause was commendable. For far too long the LSS has been underperforming in its consideration of legal consequences. Something rather ironic from a bunch of law students.
Was on the fence
11/10/2016 11:57:23 am
Yeah, I didn't attend the AGM because I had mixed feelings either way about this topic, but Michael and Virginia's analysis has convinced me to be against it. Great article.
Oh really
11/10/2016 11:42:12 pm
Really? Did you *really* not attend? Think carefully.
Was on the fence
13/10/2016 07:18:09 am
Yeah fam didn't go
Soup
11/10/2016 04:59:16 pm
Michael and Virginia have done pretty good here
it's a secret
11/10/2016 06:34:51 pm
u r so hot xx
Anonymous commenting is an important part of the process
11/10/2016 06:39:01 pm
Love that the 'three' responses from those supporting the change include a 'fourthly'. Looks like the contribution was considered as closely as their proposed alteration.
U wot m8
11/10/2016 07:28:09 pm
Safe spaces and the breaking down of self evident norms have no place in an institution that prides itself on academic enquiry and bravery. Virginia and Michael whoever you are make good points the demarcation of these issues is damaging let merit reign!!
a.a
11/10/2016 11:48:48 pm
Ugh
Eugene Twomey
11/10/2016 09:52:22 pm
Michael and Virginia raise an interesting question about first years not being made sufficiently aware of existing avenues to express concerns they might not feel comfortable discussing with a FYR of a different gender (or, by extension, a different sexuality or background).
+1
11/10/2016 09:54:15 pm
Seconded!
Loulou Willis
11/10/2016 10:06:05 pm
I had a bit of difficulty with the original argument from Michael and Virginia on this point.
Loulou Willis
11/10/2016 10:07:47 pm
But I agree fully where the issue is not specifically related to the first year experience!
Anon
11/10/2016 10:25:34 pm
Thanks to all four writers for having a public voice on the matter.
Dan Sing
11/10/2016 10:27:22 pm
Michael and Virginia = the Ken Bone of our law school.
SUM TING WONG
11/10/2016 10:33:13 pm
Not the heroes that we deserve, but the heroes we need
Anon2
11/10/2016 11:17:24 pm
I actually think you're both wrong.
lee
11/10/2016 11:51:42 pm
are you fucking kidding?
Henry HL
11/10/2016 10:43:23 pm
@Michael & Virginia
Anonymous First Year
11/10/2016 11:11:18 pm
@Henry I am a first year female who did not follow much of this debate but voted against it because I vehemently believe in merit when it comes to elected positions, particularly in an environment where women are in the majority of the student cohort and the LSS Committee more broadly.
rosie francis
11/10/2016 11:44:02 pm
@Anonymous FY - it's a lovely thing, isn't it, having your legitimate opinions and concerns being characterised so dismissively?
Anon
12/10/2016 12:02:18 am
Hi Anonymous First Year,
missing the point again
12/10/2016 12:03:21 am
@Anonymous First Year and @Rosie Francis, Henry has listed above the concerns raised by the NO's and responded to them. He hasn't summarily 'dismissed' your concerns - he's responded to them. Just like the FYR's did in the article. That's democracy at play.
Santa
12/10/2016 12:14:10 am
@anonymousfirstyear
sfdfgh
12/10/2016 12:19:06 am
Santa :D
Anon First Year
12/10/2016 12:27:42 am
@Anon you seem to miss the premise of my point regarding merit.
Santa's Helper
12/10/2016 12:36:06 am
@Santa: your comment is better than Christmas
Anon First Year
12/10/2016 12:36:45 am
@santa don't worry I won't have any qualms expressing my opinion once I have left this law school. For in my experience MLS is not a space space for those who have differing views and are denied a fair debate and completely disregarded.
Rosie Francis
12/10/2016 09:14:55 am
@Missing the point -
Anon
13/10/2016 03:10:32 pm
You're the best present I could have wished for Santa.
Anon
13/10/2016 03:36:24 pm
Santa you're the best present I could have every wished for.
Steph
12/10/2016 12:11:57 am
I look forward to seeing it pass too, HH
MegaBaes
12/10/2016 12:13:46 am
+1
Unnecessary to answer
12/10/2016 04:18:50 pm
I wish to respond only to the first two paragraphs of Henry's post.
Anon
13/10/2016 03:34:59 pm
Henry, whilst I agree from a pragmatic perspective that most aggrieved parties would not bother with the expensive, resource intensive and relationship process of challenging the constitution, forming policy on such an assumption is far from best practice and undermines the argument for the proposed policy.
rosie francis
11/10/2016 11:31:35 pm
Such a great post giving each side room to express their views fully.
Tim Sarder
13/10/2016 07:21:28 am
I'm in agreeance with you entirely, Rosie - specifically the concern re winning by default - candidates who are guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) entry have less of an incentive to campaign hard and make substantive promises
Cotton Wool
11/10/2016 11:42:56 pm
When I so often hear students at MLS complaining that University isn't preparing them for the workplace, it is because of provisions such as this that cotton wool us and don't teach us how to handle the real world.
lee
12/10/2016 12:01:42 am
Demanding a new work team' is a terrible example. Plenty of workplaces, boards, executive committees have affirmative action provisions. Most student societies have them, for Christ's sake. MLS is lagging well behind.
AA believer
12/10/2016 12:53:12 am
Thank-you @Lee you are right let's have an affirmative action provision to bring our society into line with others, so the entire LSS can address the non-issue of overall female representation on the LSS. Currently on the LSS females are represented almost on par with their representation in the student cohort. Surely our LSS should be a shining example to all - we have representation of females above 50% and even better in line with our representation amongst the entire law student cohort, and we did this without AA policies!! (I am a female student who in my undergrad was involved in implementing AA provisions for a student club so am all for it when it is needed).
Yee
12/10/2016 02:07:05 am
"Most student societies have them, for Christ's sake. MLS is lagging well behind."
Lee
12/10/2016 11:04:06 am
@AA Believer: We did this once. Once, in the 4 years I've been here, we achieved normal gender balance in the LSS.
Anon
13/10/2016 03:42:05 pm
Appealing to authority via that practices of other organisations is fraught with danger. If there is a strong argument for the proposal it should stand on its own merits, without the need to point externally.
C
12/10/2016 09:04:45 am
I look forward to seeing this terrible motion dismissed and discarded left to rot and gather dust. Absolute garbage policy. The fact that people are advocating for it is what is wrong with modern "feminism" and society generally today.
is c short for cunt
12/10/2016 09:03:00 pm
Manners
12/10/2016 10:13:44 pm
@IsCShortFor - just wow - based on your evident disrespect I would assume you don't agree with @C and you thereby support the motion, however your use of "the C word" means you evidently lack an appreciation for be actual struggles of women over the centuries where "the C word" has been used to demean and disparage us.
Anon
13/10/2016 03:44:58 pm
This isn't Trades Hall, mate. Keep the gutter talk back where it belongs.
Sick of Law School
12/10/2016 10:03:11 am
The argument about merit is ridiculous! There is no such thing as a pure meritocracy.
Michael
12/10/2016 12:16:50 pm
"Obviously middle class, white girls are smarter and work harder than middle class, white boys because that is why we have more women than men at the law school - that's as far as merit goes."
Kek
12/10/2016 02:35:26 pm
Lol indeed. People talk about being blinded by their own privilege, and I suggest this author who is so keen to reprimand other people for their privilege, is unable to see her own.
Ban
12/10/2016 05:26:26 pm
It's about time we removed privileged white males from Law School. They need to check their privilege and realise they aren't here on merit. Do us all a favour and withdraw from the course.
Monika
12/10/2016 05:05:37 pm
Works in Iceland. The arguments on ambiguity of the provisions are very Law Student.
Henry HL
12/10/2016 10:01:12 pm
The precision required here is not that of a country. Most student societies have constitutions that are borderline nonsensical. Things trundle along fine. That is because a student society is a small group that can easily pass on institutional practices and understandings, and one that is devoid high-powered barristers deliberately crafting ambiguity in favour of their clients. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
October 2022
|