Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

Every woman doesnt make that choice though, I have no strong feelings about the sex of the person doing this job, but do very much so about intimate care roles. I probably agree with some of the comments made at the time this reared its head, I think it's probably distraction from the issue of poverty.

Exactly

So let's scrap a roll that was looking into period poverty

Makes no sense

There are men out there who know a hell of a lot more about female anatomy than I do.

And there are men out there who know a hell of a lot more about how to do this job role than I do.

As long as they do it well, lots of women don't care but enough do to create an entire campaign of misinformation and tank the whole idea

And volver is justified to be angry about that, I am just as angry honestly

Why didn't he just get on with the task of liaising with employers, if that was actually the job?

I can't believe there was such a huge barrage of threats & abuse, rather than people giving opinions, that the whole thing had to be abandoned.

volver I don't get upset that you avoid replying to a particular point.
I mentioned it as you are so sure you're right and I'll just mention, now, that you've avoided it again this morning.

More importantly, concerns were raised about the process of the appointment of this particular man for the role. He was appointed by the person who had appointed him to his two previous positions following a brief time of advertisement and application for the post, plus his lack of appropriate qualifications and experience, both medical and managerial.

I would value Martina Navratilova's opinion highly as she has far more experience of dealing with period problems during a very physical and stressful career, and presumably also the menopause.

FarNorth

Why didn't he just get on with the task of liaising with employers, if that was actually the job?

I can't believe there was such a huge barrage of threats & abuse, rather than people giving opinions, that the whole thing had to be abandoned.

volver I don't get upset that you avoid replying to a particular point.
I mentioned it as you are so sure you're right and I'll just mention, now, that you've avoided it again this morning.

So people from al around the world, including former tennis players, actors and random women off social media sites, have complained about this person getting a job. They've posted goodness knows what kind of comments, they've displayed rampant discrimination and (willfully?) misunderstood the role. They are fixated on one publicity photo for the Dundee Courier as though that defines the whole project.

The man probably feels terrible, but FarNorth doesn't believe all that. Maybe he should just man up, do you think?

I've forgotten what it is that you think I'm ignoring but I'm almost sure it's some irrelevant piece of information which you think defines the attitude of the patriarchy.

I think the strength of feeling most probably stems from people (women in this case) wanting to be represented by someone with experience and surely there must be someone as there are plenty of us vagina havers available . A bit like disability awareness roles, ethnic minority executives etc being represented by people who understand and experience and are able to represent fully. Obviously there are cases where people have to be advocated for as they do not have the capacity to voice their feelings or protect their own set of rights/needs.

I also went to bed

A man shouldn't be a period dignity officer. What does a man, who has never had them, know about periods?
A woman ie a person who has actually had, or has had periods was surely a better candidate for the job?
The whole decision to employ a man was ridiculous from the start.
Typical woke nonsense. They should fire the idiots who came up with the decision.

What does a period dignity officer do snowberryZ? What does the job entail?

Typical woke nonsense. They should fire the idiots who came up with the decision.

I'd love your opinion FarNorth as to whether calling people (women, actually) "idiots who should be sacked" is opinion or abuse?

Meanwhile Glasgow has quietly appointed a female period dignity officer' who has just got on with the job. No fuss. The group who appointed the man to this job are the people who should be having a good think.
Poverty itself underlies any loss of period dignity.

Surely anyone in the role needs a good grasp on what is and is not acceptable to a woman when discussing periods regardless
of whether this is publicity or verbal communication.
Volver needs to stop the snidy down putting remarks as was
discussed in the very lengthy thread the other Sunday.

halfpint1

Surely anyone in the role needs a good grasp on what is and is not acceptable to a woman when discussing periods regardless
of whether this is publicity or verbal communication.
Volver needs to stop the snidy down putting remarks as was
discussed in the very lengthy thread the other Sunday.

I'll do that as soon as people stop being so discriminatory and opinionated about something they know nothing about.

Aveline

Meanwhile Glasgow has quietly appointed a female period dignity officer' who has just got on with the job. No fuss. The group who appointed the man to this job are the people who should be having a good think.
Poverty itself underlies any loss of period dignity.

Got a quote or link about Glasgow?

volver

halfpint1

Surely anyone in the role needs a good grasp on what is and is not acceptable to a woman when discussing periods regardless
of whether this is publicity or verbal communication.
Volver needs to stop the snidy down putting remarks as was
discussed in the very lengthy thread the other Sunday.

I'll do that as soon as people stop being so discriminatory and opinionated about something they know nothing about.

Bear with me, as I am away with a friend just now, and promised myself that I would not be tempted to surf the web when in company (am online now while she is in the shower) so don't have time to research the role myself beyond reading the newspaper article, but as you obviously have information not in the article, would you mind explaining it, and why this man was well suited to appointment?

The article says that Mr Grant was appointed to work with the period dignity working group to ensure the legal right to free period products in public places, that he was expected to lead a regional campaign across schools, colleges and wider communities to raise awareness of the new law and ensure that Scottish government funding is allocated appropriately, and to 'discuss issues around the menopause'. What do you think people are not understanding, and why? It seems pretty clear to me, unless you are conflating disagreement with your point of view with a lack of understanding?

Assuming that the article's description is reasonably accurate, my guess would be that the role involves PR (specifically publicity/information campaigns and media management), policy making (with possible legislative involvement depending on the seniority of the role), research, budget management and probably management of fundraising/sponsorship, but please correct me if I'm wrong?

Clearly he is not good at signing off PR, which is, presumably, a major part of a role like this - in fact I would expect the postholder to be involved in designing PR strategy, not just signing it off. He can have no personal experience of periods, which is (IMO) fair enough, as many roles connected to physiology are not held by those with experience, but neither can he have the faintest idea about the dignity aspect, which is clearly integral to the role in a more fundamental way.

Whereas the publicity shots of his appointment will have been handled by whoever was doing the PR beforehand and he is unlikely to have had a lot of input, his grasp of media relations and relationship building seems tenuous if the article is to be believed. He could have refused to wear the top, for a start. Apparently he said that being a man would help him 'break down barriers', and that 'although affecting women directly, periods are an issue for everyone'. A rudimentary grasp of the nuances of gender politics would have put a stop to that sort of inflammatory statement before the words passed his lips, and if it was a misquote he should have stopped it from going out.

As he 'has not responded to any of the criticism which followed his appointment' it would seem that his understanding of the two-way dialogue necessary for crisis management is also sadly lacking.

I think I understand what is involved in roles like this, and that I have formed a reasonably accurate view of why he doesn't seem the ideal incumbent, but am happy to have the gaps in my understanding plugged if I've missed anything. I won't be able to reply immediately, as I am going out for the day when my friend finishes her ablutions, but I will read with interest.

Well I suppose there will be the same kind of outcry when the next male gynaecologist/obstetrician is appointed? After all that is a role when women are intimately involved. (Waits for the reply-but he will be properly qualified etc.) So it seems some jobs can be done by a man but not others. It's plainly ridiculous.
Are we I wonder approaching an era when only women will be accepted as suitable to deal with women and therefore men with men. Hang on aren't there some countries where that happens already????Do we really want to go down that road?

Whilst this man's job may well have been about the PR and the sourcing of the products, it nevertheless sends out a confusing message to the 12, 13, 14 year who surely are the very people who this campaign would be aimed at. Given that some of that age already have to put up with the sniggering of their male peer group, having a youngish male presented surrounded by young women as if he is some sort of period guru might be the last person a young woman, certainly those with cultural sensibilities around the matter, would want to consult. The publicity campaign somewhat misfired in belying what his actual role was, I can't help feeling there was some sort of subliminal message of "women and girls you're not entitled to privacy around these biological functions get over it".

I'm always amazed that my own 12 year old granddaughter has an innate sense of reserve in some areas and I imagine that is even more pronounced with young girls from certain ethnicities. With all that in mind, I often think there is a massive oversight right now into just how much girls and women from all cultures want their female enclaves when it comes to intimate issues and no matter how sympathetic a man might be, for some girls he won't be, in their mind relatable in such a context.

DorothyGlamour

Rosie51 there is a previous thread that started when the job was announced. Lots of the comments on that are the same or very similar to lots on here. It is quite clear that far too many people still fail to understand what the job is/ was about but continue to comment despite this.

The job description was posted on the previous thread.

Well I'll leave you all to congratulate yourselves that the outdated attitudes shown in this thread have cost someone their job, and made an innovative policy harder to implement. All because of ignorance and prejudice.

That is a ridiculous post
I'm sure the previous Gransnet thread about this influenced the decision. ?

Why do you always write such aggressive posts on so many threads to those who may have a different opinion to you, volver?
You may not always be correct in your views even if you think you are but it's possible to state your views without attacking others, surely? Other posters manage it.
Just curious really.

Well Doodledog, instead of deciding for yourself what the role might involve, you could have actually read the job description which I posted on the first thread about this topic?

Then you might not have thought it wise to criticise him for not having the skills which you imagine you might like him to have, but have nothing to do with the job.

The red t-shirt discussion is - literally - unbelieveable. You (plural) expect him not to wear a red t-shirt because some people might take offence. Do you all think that when you see women in short skirts, because someone might get offended? Its completely bizarre to object to a red t-shirt. It's just bizarre, sorry, I don't have any other word.

Whether we like it or not, none of us on this thread have any influence over what person is appointed to a role in an organisation we have no links to. You might not have chosen him Doodledog but others did. He might not be your ideal candidate but you are not the person employing him. The people running the program were the people employing him, and neither you, me nor the cat's mother get a say. Except "the mob" have taken against the whole thing and it's fallen apart.

Mob rule. I keep thinking about that mob who went after the pediatrician.

Callistemon21

^Well I'll leave you all to congratulate yourselves that the outdated attitudes shown in this thread have cost someone their job, and made an innovative policy harder to implement^. All because of ignorance and prejudice.

That is a ridiculous post
I'm sure the previous Gransnet thread about this influenced the decision. ?

Why do you always write such aggressive posts on so many threads to those who may have a different opinion to you, volver?
You may not always be correct in your views even if you think you are but it's possible to state your views without attacking others, surely? Other posters manage it.
Just curious really.

Stop calling me and my posts ridiculous or I will report you. You do it regularly and a pattern is emerging.

Well I suppose there will be the same kind of outcry when the next male gynaecologist/obstetrician is appointed? After all that is a role when women are intimately involved. (Waits for the reply-but he will be properly qualified etc.)

Yes, that's exactly what I think, Glorianny.
He's not medically qualified and his job was not just to ensure that the law was complied with, it was to interact and discuss with young people too.
Women and young girls wishing to discuss gynaecological problems may feel much more confident doing so if the person they confide in is medically qualified or at least is another female with personal knowledge of the problems of menstruation.

volver

Callistemon21

Well I'll leave you all to congratulate yourselves that the outdated attitudes shown in this thread have cost someone their job, and made an innovative policy harder to implement. All because of ignorance and prejudice.

That is a ridiculous post
I'm sure the previous Gransnet thread about this influenced the decision. ?

Why do you always write such aggressive posts on so many threads to those who may have a different opinion to you, volver?
You may not always be correct in your views even if you think you are but it's possible to state your views without attacking others, surely? Other posters manage it.
Just curious really.

Stop calling me and my posts ridiculous or I will report you. You do it regularly and a pattern is emerging.

Carry on.
I did not call you ridiculous btw.

Why not discuss the issues instead of attacking posters?

Red T shirt = body language

Iam64

I’m definitely in the 21st century. That doesn’t mean I’d appoint a man to a post that imo, fits with legislation that allows the person appointed to be female.

The extent of your anger intrigues me volver. I’m all for equality of opportunity, I accept that in most areas of employment the best person can and should be appointed. Periods/young women particularly - women needed.

There’s increasing research that women are poorly served in male dominated medicine.

Yes if anyone has read about the women who are suffering great pain every day as a result of having vaginal mesh inserted, and some of the flippant dismissive responses from surgeons who carried out those procedures, illustrates the point you made in your last paragraph Iam.

volver

Well Doodledog, instead of deciding for yourself what the role might involve, you could have actually read the job description which I posted on the first thread about this topic?

Then you might not have thought it wise to criticise him for not having the skills which you imagine you might like him to have, but have nothing to do with the job.

The red t-shirt discussion is - literally - unbelieveable. You (plural) expect him not to wear a red t-shirt because some people might take offence. Do you all think that when you see women in short skirts, because someone might get offended? Its completely bizarre to object to a red t-shirt. It's just bizarre, sorry, I don't have any other word.

Whether we like it or not, none of us on this thread have any influence over what person is appointed to a role in an organisation we have no links to. You might not have chosen him Doodledog but others did. He might not be your ideal candidate but you are not the person employing him. The people running the program were the people employing him, and neither you, me nor the cat's mother get a say. Except "the mob" have taken against the whole thing and it's fallen apart.

Mob rule. I keep thinking about that mob who went after the pediatrician.

As I said, I am on holiday, and haven't been online, so sorry if I haven't hung on your every word as much as you'd like.

How did my interpretation of the role differ from the reality?

I didn't say I wouldn't have chosen him. I don't know who else applied. I am not in a 'mob', and could equally say that you and your 'gang' have decided that he was the right person, presumably with no more inside knowledge than I have. Or have you?

I should have known better than to expect a reasoned or even polite response from you on this topic, as increasingly you seem unable to be civil about very much, and when it comes to anything to do with gender politics you appear to lose what balance you otherwise show.

Disagree by all means, but there is no need to be so bloody superior when doing it.