"A Terrible Day for Gender Equality"

i look at the intellectual qualifications....i think it would be better to have someone that knows how to do the job than to have someone that fits the "diversity" requirement....ie....in the case of this position....if the man had the documented qualifications, and the woman did not or was lacking, then the man should get the job...not because he's a man but because he was better qualified...if the woman had better documented qualifications than the man then she should have the job....she should not get the job just because she's a woman....that is discrimination based on gender....not gender equality...

Fenton wrote: Over 900 more people signed the petition to have him removed than voted in the original ballot. Democratic voting only works if people go out of their way to actually vote, rather than just complain when the results come out.

That right there is the biggest problem I have with the whole thing. If you wanted a different result you should have voted in the first place. No back seat voting.

As for the issue as a whole. If the guy wanted the job and people who cared enough to vote wanted him to have the job than he should have been allowed to do the job. If, after a time, either he decided that he shouldn't do it or he did a poor enough job that the people who put him there thought that he should be replaced then he should be.

Fenton wrote: ..and the woman who replaced him will have to do her job knowing that the sole reason she got in was because she was female.

In my mind, this is not equality. It's the opposite of equality and it leads to unqualified people getting jobs they didn't actually deserve.

I don't have exact numbers on how many votes each candidate received, but the petition only really became a thing after the story went viral; I haven't heard of many people on campus having any issue at all with him taking the role, so the people who protested the result really had no right to interfere in a voting process that they weren't invited to. It would be like me petitioning against whoever won a ballot in America; I don't even have the right to an opinion in that matter, because it is not my election to make. And I have to assume that people knew 'James' was a male name, and most likely represented a male.

Would people see it differently if James claimed to identify as female? If he was transgendered? Because I certainly have no proof that he does not, and physical appearance is not an indication of 'gender'. He could utilize a very feminine kind of mindset and outlook on life, and hence be as effective and understanding of women's issues as a biological female.

if his supporters knew he was a male when they voted for him then he basically abandoned them to a less qualified candidate because of the whiny baby antics of whiny babies

they supported him once, they would most surely not wish their intelligent and informed vote to be disregarded and overturned as a result of the crybaby antics of people who didnt care to care from the beginning

as their elected representative in that instance it was his responsibility to listen to THEM

if they didnt know he was a male then he failed to appropriately address an important - a VERY important -point

if he didnt think it necessary to address that point i do not see that he is intellectually qualified to represent anyone because he doesnt even represent himself intelligently

i dont see that there is a way to make him well qualified in this

better qualified than the even less competent opposition maybe

Fenton wrote: The student union at my university recently held an election for the position of Women's Officer. Out of two candidates, one won with a clear majority, with better qualifications for the role and a clear determination to do their best at the job. The only problem, was that the candidate that won was a male. Within a few weeks, an online petition had amassed roughly 1000 signatures to have him removed and replaced by the less qualified female candidate.

What do you guys think about this issue? Does the Women's Officer have to be a woman (like expecting an advocate for ASD to be on the spectrum themselves)? Or do you think forcing this man to resign was a blatant act of gender discrimination?

I tend to side with the latter, but I have sourced articles looking from both perspectives.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-people/dl-entertainment/man-quits-as-university-womens-officer-20150410-1mi0k6.html
http://www.aphramag.com/why-yesterday-was-a-terrible-day-for-gender-inequality-in-universities/

And you're surprised by that? Feminism is bred at universities, and feminism is the largest political lobby there is making BigOill and BiggerGuns look like they're from the third world. Not only are men inferior in numbers (especially at uni), and therefore at a disadvantage when it comes to democratic elections, but lobbies completely bypass the democratic process anyway. I honestly don't understand why men still want to go to uni, it has got so much worse there in the past 10 years, there simply are better ways to learn for us nowadays, especially if the end goal is to learn something you can live from without some kind of government-enforced subsidy or quota fullfillment.

I'm not really feeling sorry for that guy though, he wanted to serve gynocentrim and he got just that.