Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

Caleo

I'd support a parallel campaign for washable reusable period protection.

I second, to rinse out and then put in with the knicker wash, it was how our mothers had to cope with.
I happily used tampons (mother didn’t discuss them in our ‘talk’, copied a friend) under the same idea what about reusable cups.
These ideas should be discussed in the class in the science lesson.

Ilovecheese

You make a good point Glorianny but if that was why this man was appointed, the panel that appointed him should have robustly defended his appointment, given their reasons and been wholly open about how the decision to appoint this particular man was reached.

I agree Ilovecheese and what I find most awful about this whole episode is that women, who have complained vigorously about on-line abuse and the threats of transactivists seem to have taken on the same role, and used the media to totally destroy something which could have been so helpful to young women. I can't decide who failed them more, the women who attacked or the women who capitulated.
One thing is certain it is a sad day for sisterhood.

I think a lot of young women use washable products. They are a really useful idea.

On line abuse does seem, unfortunately, to be part of public life. Diane Abbott has been subjected to this for years, and has continued to work.

The sisterhood has more to worry about than this, IMO.

It’s not a bad idea to have a period dignity officer, but if women’s issues were taken more seriously there might have been more attention paid to getting someone competent in the role.

If the comment about ‘women who complain about transactivists’ is a cheap but predictable dig at posters on here, it is tiresome and does not bear scrutiny.

Not wanting women to be attacked by men in balaclavas does not equate to any position on public health appointments. Many feminists might think that a role like that is more suited to a woman, but what that has to do with transactivism is beyond me - perhaps you could explain?

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

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.

That is repetition, not explanation

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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?

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.

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..

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.

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 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.