A student has filed a proposal for the creation of a part time Men’s Officer position at YUSU, York Vision can exclusively reveal.
The student, third year Johannes Huber, has said he wished to see “a moderate middle ground solution to a lot of the issues which have been raised last week.”
He said: “Unlike some individuals, I do not believe men are oppressed or need liberation.
“However, it is quite difficult to deny that there are areas where men are underrepresented and not heard.”
In his policy proposal, Huber describes the would-be-officer’s main role as being “in charge of identifying issues affecting male students.”
The proposal continues: “Once identified, he will determine ways to address these issues, and work with other YUSU officers when these issues affect their constituencies as well.”
Under the current system, students can submit YUSU policy alterations to a review group, after which the idea can go to referendum if the idea is successful.
Huber has expressed his commitment to make the proposal “apolitical”, calling it a “constitutional argument.”
He references YUSU By-Law 3 section 25.3 which says: “To find out the views and needs of the students they represent and promote them within the Union and to external bodies as appropriate.”
“Every part time officer has this duty, to investigate the issues of their constituency and to find ways to address them…there is currently no one to do this for men,” Huber said.
“Of course the majority of YUSU officers are male,” he adds, “but it is in none of their purview’s to actively find and address issues affecting the male part of the student body.”
Huber claims more a than a dozen people have agreed with his idea after discussing it with them.
The proposals come in wake of the controversy sparked by the University’s decision to not mark International Men’s day on November 16.
The fact that this doesn’t already exist (while a women’s officer does) is an insult to anyone who considers themselves a humanist.
Men’s position in universities seems to have been entirely dictated by radical feminist propaganda.
I think this is a lovely idea. I see no downside to this ,I hope that York university consider this proposal.
Oh, it’s that time of year again.
This tedious non-debate crops up like clockwork pretty regularly at York. I remember the previous two times it happened- the (initially innocent) campaign inevitably gets hijacked within the week by the standard brigade of reactionary MRA fuckwits more concerned with stopping the evils of women getting something that doesn’t exclusively cater to them than with actual constructive discussion on welfare issues specifically facing men on campus.
Expect to hear the usual gaggle of smug libertarian children fresh from their first read of Atlas Shrugged warbling on at nauseating length across campus about the nefarious SJW/Feminazi conspiracy to undermine “masculinity”, how the gender pay gap’s really nonexistent, and (inevitably) how the gender gap in STEM careers isn’t thanks to discrimination, but because women’s brains are just *naturally wired* to not care about science and maths, and society should just recognise that they’re naturally meant to be uncompensated housewives and baby factories.
Also, bonus “joke” campaigns. Anyone remembering the Saul/Pickard farce from 2009 will recall exactly how much of a difference that kind of grandstanding makes to welfare issues.
I was ambivalent when the Gender Equality Officer proposal initially cropped up last time. Attending even a single event with the MRA contingent present was enough to instantly demonstrate exactly why we need the Women’s Officer position, and why a Men’s Officer position would be an appalling concession to some of the very worst on campus- not to mention a waste of Union money.
While the guy behind this motion probably has noble intentions, he’s opened a can of worms I expect he’ll come to regret intensely in relatively short order. The people likely to be agitating the loudest for the creation of a Men’s Officer position don’t understand the nature of exactly what it is the Women’s Officer(s) do, the reasons it’s necessary, or, often (usually), what “feminism” actually is.
There’s every bit as much need for a Union Men’s Officer position as there is for a White Students’ Officer, or a Middle-Class Students’ Officer. The issue that people like @Gary seem to be dizzyingly unaware of is that this sort of position should exist with serious reason- they’re *liberation* officers. (Straight, white) men on campus don’t really need liberating from anything- all their bases are covered amply by the existing welfare and liberation positions/services, and the constructive, *unique* contribution they can really make to campus welfare is nonexistent.
If you’re so desperate for the creation of a Men’s Officer position for the sake of parity, surely you should be campaigning for the introduction of a White Students’ Officer to balance out BME students’ current special representation in the union? Surely this is a case of “radical racial egalitarians” dictating white students’ position, by that line of logic.
They won’t hire one. They should ,but won’t.
This seems awfully tame compared with our 1996 proposal for YUSU to have an Officer representing it’s Tory, Catholic and Daily Mail reading members (“The Bigot Officer”)
@Champagne How does men trying to address men’s problems interfere with women dealing with women’s issues? It is clear that many feminists are the one that see this as an infringement on their own entitled and self centred view of the world. You have taken zero sum thinking to a level of weapons grade stupidity.
MRAs don’t protest and try to silence feminists when they gather but feminists routinely try to shut down men when they simply want to hold a dialogue about things like the epidemic of male succeed. These bigots scream, insult, harass, threaten (bomb threats, etc.), pull fire alarms, lie, and are the ones actually oppressing others.
I once heard a feminist who was protesting a MRA gathering say “why can’t men seek answers in feminist spaces?” just after screaming obscenities at men who simply wanted to hold a discussion (also honoured speakers at the event were women so it is not a “boys only club” by any means.
You demonize us. You dismiss our suffering. You try to silence us. Even disagreeing with you is decried as misogyny. You dehumanize us at every turn and you wonder why we don’t see feminism as a good thing. As a male victim of a sex crime (by a female) do you think I see your monolith of hate as a “safe space” that I can find healing?
Your prejudice and hate is on full display and you are so unaware of yourself you think it a badge of pride.
“hold a dialogue about things like the epidemic of male succeed.” should have said “hold a dialogue about things like the epidemic of male suicide”
darn autocorrect.
want happen.
feminist will accuse him off rape and call the idea of trying to help a holocaust to women´s rights
What about MY view on this?
Heres the full proposal for anyone interested in discussing what im actually proposing rather than responding to each others rhetoric:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bw8g5gKRW7NlTXdnRjVoVERvLXM/view?usp=sharing
Everybody in the comments section should take a little step back and stop fueling the fire of a ridiculous ‘men vs women’ dialogue. Get over yourselves and consider the proposal outside of whatever beliefs you may have about men and women. This is not part of some ‘getting your own back’ stupidity against having a women’s officer; there is a very serious reason for the suggestion; as many might have already guessed a big reason behind it could be the problem of men’s mental health.
This doesn’t mean that men’s mental health is more important than women’s, it doesn’t mean that men are faced with the same problems or even same level of oppression that women clearly are still faced with; just as Johannes said in the quote (shout out to @Champagne for not bothering to read that part). It just simply points out that men encounter problems in life too, and some of these problems are serious.
It can’t be stressed enough that this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with women; it concerns itself simply with issues that men face; which are as of recent namely mental health issues – which undeniably exist. It does not belittle the role of a women’s officer, as clearly this is an integral part of the students union. Both genders have their battles to fight, so why not let them do it?
I think it’s great he has men’s interests in mind, it’s nice to know people are thinking about us every now and then too. However, ultimately I feel “in charge of identifying issues”, is just going to add to the overly sensitive crowd. We need people to talk to when there IS an issue for sure, we don’t need more people going around looking for issues to be solved.
In fact the better solution here is to get ride of any position that’s role is to “identify issues” period.
Don’t these universities have student councilors anymore who are trained in helping ‘kids’ deal with various issues?
In the highly unlikely even the biased unrepresented YUSU actually approve this, they will simply find some dumb intersectional smuck happy to continue spouting nonsense about male privilege and the apparent epidemic of ‘toxic hyper masculinity’. End result, men on campus will have zero contact with the Men’s Officer.