Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

I dont think apology will help them with the sex discrimination case but we will see.

Some women on here are so entrenched in the past that they cant see in front of them!
Surely having men involved in all aspects of womens lives is agood thing? Do you want your GD's growing up believeing their sanitary protection should be wrapped in brown paper and hidden in their knicker drawer away from any boys/men in their homes? Should young men not understand what peiods are all about? One of my daughters boyfriends asked her how she could still pee if she had a tampon in place,he wasn't a stupid young man so I'm guessing he isn't the only one to think that!
My 11 year old GD proudly told not just her Dad when she had her first peiod last week ,she told both her GF's and her MALE teacher.She says they needed to know that she is a young woman now not a kid...lol.
The less we include the men the more we retreat back into that time where girls think ts something to be ashamed of .
For goodness sake its the 21st century not 1880,lets be inclusive of everyone where womens health is concerned.Like I said before I remember the outcry about male midwives ,now no one gives them a second thought ,I for one have no problems with men being given these jobs .Just the same way I expect women to get jobs that would be traditionally men.THATS equality!

Yes, the some things do come as a surprise, because no PR activity can take into account every single reaction from reactionaries. (I'm quite proud of that sentence ?)

Maybe they'll apologise for not being perfect?

They should have had that prepared then, it cant have been a surprise. They as far as I can see are facing a FI request on the recruitment process, and a possible sex discrimination case, and produced a fairly mediocre PR campaign for the post.
I am still not sure what I think about the role in general whatever the sex of the postholder.

Of course there would be discussion of his sex. Perhaps the appointing committee thought that it was a good thing that they were appointing a man to a role meant to break down barriers. Perhaps they thought someone who had been a well-being officer would have been really good in the role.

Perhaps they didn't take into account ante-diluvian attitudes and the unwillingness of some of the population to consider new paradigms.

I guess we'll never know.

I would have thought it was very predictable that there would be some discussion of his sex. Appointments that receive publicity are frequently examined with regard to ethnicity, sex, etc even if it's the bog standard comment of no longer a cabinet/boardroom of white old men.

So we have an obsession with the opinion "The man was not good at PR" because he didn't appreciate that a bunch of randoms with chips on their shoulders would take offence to him wearing a red shirt while being a man.

Also, I don't think children in playgrounds generally employ the word "unhinged" in their insults, but maybe I'm wrong.

I have responded to the bulleted list of what the job entailed that was posted upthread by either you or Glorianny. I am on my phone so it’s too difficult to go back and find it, but (however much it is denied) they were PR skills that were on that list. If explaining that is a waste of my time, so be it - I can’t help that, but it doesn’t alter the truth, and just repeating ‘it was not a PR role’ won’t alter it either. There may have been more to the role than PR, but it doesn’t matter what you call it, it is very clear that those aspects of the role were not well handled. Either the candidate didn’t know what he was doing or the working group was out of its depth.

As for my comments on the red top fiasco being ‘bizarre’ and ‘unhinged’, that is no defence at all. It is a playground insult that doesn’t address the issue, or add anything to the discussion.

As I see it, either he wore it to make a point, or he was unaware of the connotations, and in either case it doesn’t show him as remotely media savvy. How is stating that ‘bizarre’ or ‘unhinged’?

We disagree on this. If you can point to anything I have said on this thread that is personal or insulting, however, please do. I, on the other hand have been called unhinged, my feelings bizarre, my attitudes unsisterly and my motives for simply having an opinion hypocritical because of an ascribed link between that opinion and an objection to the actions of TRAs which was dragged into the thread for no obvious reason other than an attempt to undermine my opinions.

I repeat - disagree with what I say by all means. That is the point of a discussion, and without disagreement there would be no debate. But please cut the sneering and the superior attitude? There is really no need for either.

It may have ‘been stated’ that this wasn’t a PR post, but despite asking more than once, I have yet to see what else it was.

I have posted the job description, you are choosing to ignore it. That's up to you but please don't pretend you can't find out what the job entailed. And please don't try to explain the nature of PR to me, that would be a real waste of your time.

As for the red top fiasco. It's completely bizarre that you think a man shouldn't wear a red top in these circumstances. Really, really bizarre. It's views like that which give an impression that critics of this situation are just a little bit unhinged. It was just a red t-shirt. Move on, for goodness sake..

Glorianny

This is criticising something he wasn't responsible for the successful candidate appears to have been appointed without the basic skills expected of anything above an entry level PR professional. If he had them, he would have foreseen things like the red top
And as has been stated many times on this thread it was not a PR post.
He was appointed because he was the best candidate

It may have ‘been stated’ that this wasn’t a PR post, but despite asking more than once, I have yet to see what else it was. And this despite an accusation that ‘some people’ only know what was in the paper. I have explicitly included myself in that category, which is why I have asked those who (I assume from the pointed fingers) have more precise information than I do to share it, but all I have seen is Glorianny’s post which bullets what are essentially PR responsibilities.

I certainly haven’t seen anyone demanding that action should be taken, or anyone supporting demands for the role to be reconsidered, but a simple question as to why he was appointed, and how someone who couldn’t manage media criticism of the role could possibly manage a campaign to raise awareness of menstruation issues has been conflated with criticism of TRAs and a blanket assertion that he was the best candidate with no evidence to back that up. The criticism could have been a great opportunity to explain the need for the appointment, and to explain why the role is necessary.

The red top comment stands - someone who is employed to lead such a campaign should have known that it was a stupid idea, whoever suggested it. He should have vetoed it even before taking up the role.

I feel sorry for him on a human level - bad enough to lose a job before it starts without so much speculation and controversy, but publicly funded posts do need to be seen to be fairly allocated.

I love this paragraph.
Expressing opinions in cases like this on social media which condemn and criticise individuals and demand that action should be taken is wrong. It's fine to express an opinion of course but not to such a degree that individuals suffer.
I don’t recollect total support for JKR or KS who suffered from people’s expressed opinions, social media condemnation and worse for speaking the truth. Was that because they weren’t men?

This is criticising something he wasn't responsible for the successful candidate appears to have been appointed without the basic skills expected of anything above an entry level PR professional. If he had them, he would have foreseen things like the red top
And as has been stated many times on this thread it was not a PR post.
He was appointed because he was the best candidate

I’m not. I’m wondering why he was appointed, is all.

Doodledog

Yes, it seems that 'the sisterhood' is a lazy term for people who agree with certain views, and in this case the view that it is ok for women to be pushed out of the way for men.

Nobody has yet answered the question I posed yesterday, which is why, given that the role is essentially a PR one, the successful candidate appears to have been appointed without the basic skills expected of anything above an entry level PR professional. If he had them, he would have foreseen things like the red top (whether or not the opinion of people on her is the it was important) and a potential SM backlash, and stopped it in its tracks with pre-planned media management tactics.

I have no more idea than anyone not on the panel (including the appointees supporters) why he got the job over other candidates, but I repeat that he has not demonstrated PR skills in office, or this thread wouldn't be happening.

It's difficult to know how he can be to blame when he hadn't even taken up the position yet. I assume any press releases were the responsibility of the people who were running the campaign and his employers. However it seems that the responsibility for everything has to be heaped on this man. It wasn't just a PR role anyway, but as it no longer exists it seems a bit pointless to keep blaming him.

Yes, it seems that 'the sisterhood' is a lazy term for people who agree with certain views, and in this case the view that it is ok for women to be pushed out of the way for men.

Nobody has yet answered the question I posed yesterday, which is why, given that the role is essentially a PR one, the successful candidate appears to have been appointed without the basic skills expected of anything above an entry level PR professional. If he had them, he would have foreseen things like the red top (whether or not the opinion of people on her is the it was important) and a potential SM backlash, and stopped it in its tracks with pre-planned media management tactics.

I have no more idea than anyone not on the panel (including the appointees supporters) why he got the job over other candidates, but I repeat that he has not demonstrated PR skills in office, or this thread wouldn't be happening.

Is there evidence of vicious women making it impossible for this post to continue?

Plenty of women, and some men, gave their opinion that Jason Grant was the wrong choice but I didn't see anyone demanding he should be dismissed.

Keep the sisterhood, it’s just an excuse now to bully people into acting a certain way tgey feel appropriate but not most of us. Haven’t got time for any of them, they let us women down.

You cant operate like that though. Numerous comments were made that the new cabinet wasnt made up of white men. And then people saying actually class matters more than ethnic background so it isnt really a diverse cabinet. Is that opinion ok? I suppose it's all a good example of the absolute pointlessness of identity politics.

Sorry I should perhaps have made it clearer. Expressing opinions in cases like this on social media which condemn and criticise individuals and demand that action should be taken is wrong. It's fine to express an opinion of course but not to such a degree that individuals suffer.
For example saying you think a woman should have had the job would be OK. Demanding that the man appointed should be dismissed wouldn't.
I think the threats made may seem to be more harmful, but the "opinions" can be just as harmful, especially in this case.

Have you just said opinions are wrong.
You do understand you have just expressed an opinion.

Galaxy

There is a difference between opinions, whether I agree with them or not, and threats.

But the results are often the same and that is why both are wrong.

There is a difference between opinions, whether I agree with them or not, and threats.

That is repetition, not explanation

I would have imagined it is fairly obvious. It is not acceptable to complain about the actions of transactivists but accept the people who have used social media to criticise this appointment to such a degree that the post has been abolished. Ilovecheese posted about the on-line abuse of Diane Abbott. I wholeheartedly condemn any abuse or judgement by social media, it would be nice if others could do the same.

Thanks for your perceptive post Doodledog. An explanation would be good, but is unlikely to appear.