SRC Election Results 2005 - the Post-Mortem (2 Viewers)

[walrusbear]

My point is that while our SRC continues to advocate things like "equality for women" by discriminating against me as a male, supporting terrorist organisations like Falun Gong, spending SRC resources on protests against police brutality (like Today's protest, for example) and on the campaign for candidates in the UTS student association, and refusing to assist me in my own issues, that there are students like you who actually believe that this is a GOOD thing.

I pay the same as any other student, despite the fact that I am on a different campus and don't even get access to the common services that all students at USYD are supposed to have. I want fair and equal representation. I want my money to contribute to a university community that I can actually be a part of. And I don't want my representative organisation fighting against what I believe.

well the SRC represents the political views of those who voted...
so what else can be done?

if you think it's hard being a social conservative at university, you've got no trouble

try being a social justice advocate in the current political climate. the broader world is very conservative, so you've got nothign to worry about.


that said, i think it would be fair if fees were lowered for people off-campus.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I can see how the idea is to encourage females into courses that females do not traditionally want to get into (i.e. engineering), but what about encouraging more males into female dominated courses? nursing etc?

 

[walrusbear]

It's bullshit. I generally like to ask in situations like this - who is more advantaged? Rose Jackson or Andrew Quah?

Jackson: Female, White Australian heritage. Law/EcoSocSci III. Lives in Newtown, formerly of Double Bay. Of an economically advantaged background. Mother is Liz Jackson, Former barrister and journalist and current host of Media Watch.

Quah: Male. Malay Chinese heritage. Arts/MusicStudies III. Lives in Greystanes, in the Western Suburbs. Of an economically Disadvantaged background.

I want to know why Rose is considered more deserving of ANY advantage, much less a hardship scholarship, based on her gender.

comparing two arbitrary people is suppose to be relevant somehow??

 

[Phanatical]

Let's get more women into fields like asbestos removal.

 

[walrusbear]

I can see how the idea is to encourage females into courses that females do not traditionally want to get into (i.e. engineering), but what about encouraging more males into female dominated courses? nursing etc?

i have no qualms with that
that's probably the only female dominated course and it'd be good to see more men doing it.

 

[Phanatical]

comparing two arbitrary people is suppose to be relevant somehow??

It's relevant because even though I'm more disadvantaged than Rose, Rose is the one who gets the preferential treatment. Affirmative action benefits her, not me. The SRC and its women's collective benefits her, not me. If you want to SRC to be political, then you would support the establishment of a Men's Officer so that I can access some of the resources of the SRC.

 

[walrusbear]

It's relevant because even though I'm more disadvantaged than Rose, Rose is the one who gets the preferential treatment. Affirmative action benefits her, not me. The SRC and its women's collective benefits her, not me. If you want to SRC to be political, then you would support the establishment of a Men's Officer so that I can access some of the resources of the SRC.

what do you need a men's officer for??

and your example is silly because neither of you can be seen as representative of genders, we have to speak broader here

 

[Phanatical]

When we argued broader, you wanted the debate to narrow on the University. Now when the debate narrows on the University, you want it to be broader. I'll put it nice and simply for you.

At university, men are disadvantaged.
In our school system, boys are disadvantaged.
In our workforce, men are disadvantaged.
In society, men are disadvantaged.

We make up 51% of the School Certificate candidature. We make up 49% of the Higher School Certificate candidature. And we make up 40% of the university population. We're more likely to drop out, and we're more likely to have academic issues.

We get crap female-friendly education in primary school. We grow up, marry, lose custody of the children. More of us go to jail. More of us spend long periods in jail. We're more likely to die in the workplace. We're more likely to take our own lives. And we die younger. If this is what life in the Patriarchy is like, then I can assure all the feminists out there that it's just grand.

 

[walrusbear]

When we argued broader, you wanted the debate to narrow on the University. Now when the debate narrows on the University, you want it to be broader. I'll put it nice and simply for you.

At university, men are disadvantaged.
In our school system, boys are disadvantaged.
In our workforce, men are disadvantaged.
In society, men are disadvantaged.

We make up 51% of the School Certificate candidature. We make up 49% of the Higher School Certificate candidature. And we make up 40% of the university population. We're more likely to drop out, and we're more likely to have academic issues.

We get crap female-friendly education in primary school. We grow up, marry, lose custody of the children. More of us go to jail. More of us spend long periods in jail. We're more likely to die in the workplace. We're more likely to take our own lives. And we die younger.

when i said talking broader i mean in general terms of gender on campus
talking about two arbitrary people doesn't count, because they aren't necessarily representative.

as for the rest of your post you pointed out some differences between males and females, but i don't see your point. how do SRC funds solve any of these??

 

[Phanatical]

The Women's Officer and Women's Collective deal with women's issues, both within the university and in society. If you believe the SRC is inherantly political in representing students, then surely you wouldn't oppose the creation of a Men's Officer and Men's Collective to deal with these men's issues, both within the university and in society.

Throughout the last 50 or so posts, I've continually debated the merits of the Men's Officer, but you have not demonstrated at all why we need a Women's Officer. The same arguments that justify the women's officer (which you haven't raised) are equally applicable to a Men's Officer.

What it comes down to is whether it's fair for the SRC to demand fees from all students if it's not going to represent all students.

 

[walrusbear]

Throughout the last 50 or so posts, I've continually debated the merits of the Men's Officer, but you have not demonstrated at all why we need a Women's Officer. The same arguments that justify the women's officer (which you haven't raised) are equally applicable to a Men's Officer.

the women's collective assists in services for female students in regards to childcare, sexual assault & harrassment etc.

a men's officer seems unnecessary since these issues aren't as important for men.

What it comes down to is whether it's fair for the SRC to demand fees from all students if it's not going to represent all students.

they were voted in by students, so on democratic principle it does represent the students

does anything represent ALL students?
and please, don't bother responding. your major qualm is that the SRC doesn't agree with YOU.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well what he seems to be asking for is proportional representation, which is something the greens etc seem to support. I imagine he probably would of done much better if the con was given representation.

 

[Phanatical]

Men have legitimate issues at university including, but not limited to Discrimination, increased stress and health issues.

The SRC was voted in by 9% of students, the other 91% either unwilling or unable to vote because they think the SRC is meaningless, and that they'll be able to hand in their membership soon. It's sad, but the reality is that the SRC has completely alienated students.

And yes, there are things that represent all students. As Wentworth said, universities have two goals - to impart academic knowledge, and to develop students as well-rounded people in society. And this second goal is why the Union/SRC exist. The SRC can do this by focusing on issues relating to health, welfare and wellness. Certainly there'll be debate on approaches towards this - but it'll be better than wondering why we're funding Falun Gong.

 

[walrusbear]

Men have legitimate issues at university including, but not limited to Discrimination, increased stress and health issues.

The SRC was voted in by 9% of students, the other 91% either unwilling or unable to vote because they think the SRC is meaningless, and that they'll be able to hand in their membership soon. It's sad, but the reality is that the SRC has completely alienated students.

And yes, there are things that represent all students. As Wentworth said, universities have two goals - to impart academic knowledge, and to develop students as well-rounded people in society. And this second goal is why the Union/SRC exist. The SRC can do this by focusing on issues relating to health, welfare and wellness. Certainly there'll be debate on approaches towards this - but it'll be better than wondering why we're funding Falun Gong.

did the SRC alienate students or do most students not care??
the SRC is made up of students...

i'd add to your list the support of culture and sport.

 

[Phanatical]

There are something like 17 faculties. And 45 places on the SRC. Proportional represention is just one way of allowing all faculties to be represented. I don't think it's right that the majority of our representatives come from Law, EcoSocSci and/or Political Science.

 

[Phanatical]

did the SRC alienate students or do most students not care??
the SRC is made up of students...

i'd add to your list the support of culture and sport.

MOST students don't care, because the SRC stopped representing their beliefs and interests long ago.

The Union deals with culture (theoretically). And SU Sport deals with sport. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more communication between the three organisations. As I had discussed with SU Sport, the proposed SRC Student Health, Welfare and Wellbeing Officer would have worked closely with SU Sport to benefit students.

 

[Shuter]

a men's officer seems unnecessary since these issues aren't as important for men.

How can you say that, those issues are very important to ANYONE, as well men do have additional issues, perhaps they may need assistance withtime organisation, often forced to juggle university, sporting, and part time work commitments to a greater degree than women.

The SRC has alienated students, here at UTS, I couldn't actually vote for a party that supported VSU if I tried, there is not one party on the tickets advoacting that belief.

 

[Phanatical]

I have it on authority that at UTS, the Liberal ticket FORGOT about the deadline.

 

[gerhard]

The SRC was voted in by 9% of students, the other 91% either unwilling or unable to vote because they think the SRC is meaningless, and that they'll be able to hand in their membership soon.

They should use this as an example in Philosophy 1001 for non sequitur's. Seriously mate. You cant be serious.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well is there some validity to the concept that only 9% voted? If so that's terrible and it is quite possible that the SRC is not representative.

I however think it's doubtful.