Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

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.

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.

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?

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!

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

Although I initially agreed with volver (see upthread) I wish to totally disassociate myself from judgements like “a bunch of random s with chips on their shoulders”.

If this is the attitude of those who appointed to the post and those who support then I wonder if they appointed someone who displayed a similar contempt for females.

I agree he showed an astonishing lack of awareness of the needs of the role and clearly demonstrated that he was, after all, not the right person for the job.

I do still think, however, that a male might have been able to make male employers listen and understand why menstruation can cause difficulties in the workplace.

I don’t want to say that they would be less likely to listen to a woman but I think it’s true frustratingly. Perhaps this was an opportunity for a shared sex job role?

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!

He can't have been concentrating in his biology lessons!

Some women on here are so entrenched in the past that they cant see in front of them!

But it isn't just on here, it has sparked debate online, around the country and overseas too. That can't be a bad thing but perhaps the members on the interview panel are so entrenched in their own views (whether right or wrong) they have failed to realise that so many women, no, people of all ages may not hold the same views as them and felt unease at the appointment or even if the role was necessary.
I doubt that the antediluvian views of any Gransnetters had any influence whatsoever on the decision to abolish the job.
The decision to do that without informing Mr Grant first is an indication of poor practice.

Good post Lathyrus, but I think the
bunch of randoms with chips on their shoulders aptly describes posters who use it.

I see the poor bloke is still being blamed for things he couldn't possibly have been responsible for because he hadn't taken up the post yet.
Some people seem to think that PR covers every aspect of the job (it doesn't).
Some people seem to think that denigrating the man by saying he's been in tobacco sales and a personal trainer is acceptable, he had responsibility for accounts in tobacco and runs two personal trainer businesses. He is at present (and will remain this position was a two year secondment) a health and well being officer at a Scottish college. So let's stop pretending he isn't able or qualified. It's what used to be done to women seeking to move into different areas and it is never acceptable.

It's also been said that only opinions have been expressed. Perhaps on GN but let's be very clear that the post was abolished because threats were received, unless of course you don't believe the panel of women responsible for the appointment.

Great post paddyanne54 and well done to your GD!

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



So a superior sort of insult is okay then?

I'd just like to post that some of the haranguing attitudes shown on here and the superiority that some people feel they have over a panel who actually interviewed the candidate, is indicative of those who feel that they can lecture others into thinking the way they do. Because obviously it's their way or the highway.

Whether you associate yourselves with it or not, it is the bullying on social media and other channels that have caused this horrendous situation for the panel and the putative post holder. You may not think you are the cause of this debacle, but you are.

volver

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.

Here we go again. I am not ‘obsessed’ with anything. I have commented that the role, as described by the bulleted list posted on here, was basically a PR one, which, as described by that list, it was.

I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, but I do know that wearing a red top in a press photo for a role involving periods would inevitably attract comments and that he should have realised that, which is all I was saying.

Children may or may not use the term ‘unhinged’ - they are taught more inclusive language nowadays - but the idea that someone disagreeing is in some way insane is not the level of debate usually expected of adults.

I am not saying that men should be excluded from roles like this, but I do think that they should be appointed because of expertise, which appears not to have happened. As I said earlier I am not in a position to know who else applied or any more about the interview process than anyone else on this thread (unless there are those with inside info?).

Doodledog

volver

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.

Here we go again. I am not ‘obsessed’ with anything. I have commented that the role, as described by the bulleted list posted on here, was basically a PR one, which, as described by that list, it was.

I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, but I do know that wearing a red top in a press photo for a role involving periods would inevitably attract comments and that he should have realised that, which is all I was saying.

Children may or may not use the term ‘unhinged’ - they are taught more inclusive language nowadays - but the idea that someone disagreeing is in some way insane is not the level of debate usually expected of adults.

I am not saying that men should be excluded from roles like this, but I do think that they should be appointed because of expertise, which appears not to have happened. As I said earlier I am not in a position to know who else applied or any more about the interview process than anyone else on this thread (unless there are those with inside info?).

No but castigating someone because they wore a red t-shirt is a bit random. If a woman wore a red dress and talked about periods would that be OK ? It actually seems quite appropriate to me.
And as I said he wasn't even doing the job then.

I dont care how other people think Volver, I certainly dont need people to think the way I do, I want there to be freedom for a range of opinions, even ones that make me very cross. The alternative is horrendous.

I am not castigating anyone for wearing a red top. I am saying that it was ill-advised in a press shot about a role that involves a man being the representative of women’s dignity whilst menstruating. There is a difference.

Just to lighten the mood a bit.

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. ?
Well I thought it was funny. As you were.

Perhaps he could have worn a vulva suit, like Elaine Miller.

lens.monash.edu/@medicine-health/2021/08/20/1383611/rolling-on-the-pelvic-floor-laughing-humour-as-a-public-health-ice-breaker

so her face is the clitoris? that is class

We saw so much cronyism during the pandemic (e.g. Dido Harding), surely now every public role should have their recruitment open to scrutiny.
Was the man the best candidate or was he the only candidate.

Aye, further education colleges in Scotland are renowned for cronyism intent on undermining the fairness of appointments in the public sphere. £40,000 time-limited posts are just ripe for the cronyism opportunities that they offer.

Its getting laughable now, honest it is. Let's get real, Gransnetters.

For various reasons I've had daytime TV on a lot recently. It struck me that the people who spend a lot of time watching it must think the world is a scary place, full of online scammers, people trying to steal the contents of the corner shop and criminals with swarthy looks trying to do them out of their pensions. That's what this is like; an immediate flight to the worst possible interpretation of everything that happens, and an assumption that when things don't fit one's world view, it must be a big plot.

Ilovecheese

We saw so much cronyism during the pandemic (e.g. Dido Harding), surely now every public role should have their recruitment open to scrutiny.
Was the man the best candidate or was he the only candidate.

I’ve been in a few work places where a job has been created to fit the person.

To be fair Volver you are sounding a bit conspiracy theorist yourself.

Galaxy

To be fair Volver you are sounding a bit conspiracy theorist yourself.

Well, just joining in with the spirit of things. ?

I don't think its a conspiracy theory to think that other people think there's a conspiracy....

Mmm. You would say that

Just call me Mandy (Rice-Davies)...