Period Dignity Officer post scrapped!

Doodledog

*As for all the "indignities" perhaps having a man discussing things would have opened up the subject for other men and boys and taken away the secrecy and stigma still associated with menstruation, which would do a great deal to remove the indignities. It's a question of having an open mind and not prejudging because of someone's sex.*

Why the "" around indignities? The role was a period dignity officer. My mind is not closed. I am very much open to the possibility that a woman could do the job better than a man - are you?

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, it might have happened that having a bloke in the role would educate boys about periods better than a woman who has experienced them, but is that a good reason not to give the woman a chance to show what she could do after starting up the project? Is an untried man always better than a woman in your opinion?

Anyway, let's see the result of the tribunal when more of the facts are made public?

The inverted commas were because it was a direct quote from your post Doodledog as I'm not certain what you meant by the term I used them.
The post was a Period Dignity Officer. I think the dignity probably applied more to the poverty and how that impacts on women, than to the physical aspects of menstruation, but you are free to dispute that.
As I said before the project was not started by the woman as she claims. This was new money brought in because of new legislation and it aimed to do more than go into schools and teach girls to make reusable sanitary products. The job she was doing was undoubtedly valuable, but you have claimed that this job was primarily PR and that certainly isn't what she was doing. In fact there is no evidence that she had any experience in that field.

Doodledog

I agree Rosie, but the idea that anything should be considered ’female’ is anathema to some. We really have nothing left any more.

Wee bit of an over-reaction there maybe?

I agree Rosie, but the idea that anything should be considered ’female’ is anathema to some. We really have nothing left any more.

I thought 'lived experience' was the mantra so often espoused by various vested interests? How can any male have the 'lived experience' of a first period, an unexpected flooding leading to a skirt/trousers soaked in menstrual blood, or indeed the cramps and pain of a normal/extraordinary menstrual cycle? Yes of course male (how exactly is this being defined?) understanding of female menstruation and its possible limitations/side effects is to be welcomed, but no man can come close to any 'lived experience' of menstruation.

As for all the "indignities" perhaps having a man discussing things would have opened up the subject for other men and boys and taken away the secrecy and stigma still associated with menstruation, which would do a great deal to remove the indignities. It's a question of having an open mind and not prejudging because of someone's sex.

Why the "" around indignities? The role was a period dignity officer. My mind is not closed. I am very much open to the possibility that a woman could do the job better than a man - are you?

Maybe, perhaps, possibly, it might have happened that having a bloke in the role would educate boys about periods better than a woman who has experienced them, but is that a good reason not to give the woman a chance to show what she could do after starting up the project? Is an untried man always better than a woman in your opinion?

Anyway, let's see the result of the tribunal when more of the facts are made public?

Anyway, this is less about his sex than his capacity to do the job, which is what people have been saying all along, even though we are only an unhinged and unsisterly mob with chips on our shoulders.
DD, I guess I’m part of your aforementioned mob, but if there’s going to be a full and transparent investigation into the events, what more can we ask?

Re:the prostate issue, G, are you saying that in your opinion, a woman could have done more to raise awareness than the late Bill Turnbull?
Do you think people would have taken more notice of a woman saying you need to get your prostate checked than someone who has actually experienced the problem?

I don't think I have accused anyone of being unhinged. It is obvious if you read the thread that a great many false assumptions were made about this issue, and continue to be made. The woman who has claimed she was already doing the job, was in fact doing face to face work with children. The funding for this post wasn't in place then. New legislation brought in more funding and the concept was that new stakeholders and organisations would be recruited. So although she was working in the field the two roles were very different.

As for all the "indignities" perhaps having a man discussing things would have opened up the subject for other men and boys and taken away the secrecy and stigma still associated with menstruation, which would do a great deal to remove the indignities. It's a question of having an open mind and not prejudging because of someone's sex.

Glorianny

So if it is sexist for an all women panel to choose a man to deal with period poverty would it be sexist for an all male panel to appoint a woman to head a campaign to highlight prostate cancer?
Or is it only sexist when women aren't chosen?

Not at all, and nobody has said or hinted at any such thing.

It is sexist, however, to assume that the reason a woman raises doubts about what is a clearly inappropriate appointment (confirmed by events) is because of hysteria, being unhinged, unsisterly and so on, as opposed to acknowledging that there are doubts to be raised. To appoint a female specialist in prostate issues (would that be endocrinology? I’m not sure) would be no different from appointing a male obstetrician - ie unremarkable. There are obvious differences between your examples, but there is no reason why someone of either sex shouldn’t highlight a medical condition if they are medically qualified.

Campaigning for dignity is a very different matter, though. No medical knowledge is required, but an inkling of the indignities suffered by some women and girls, sometimes from the age of around 10 until middle age would be a useful place to start, and it’s a fair assumption that women would have a better idea of those then men. Any sort of sensitivity to women’s issues, and a desire to support women in employment would indicate that unless a man is unusually in tune with women’s issues (and I would suggest that someone with cause to believe that of himself would be unlikely even to apply for such a role) he is probably not going to have as much idea as a woman.

Anyway, this is less about his sex than his capacity to do the job, which is what people have been saying all along, even though we are only an unhinged and unsisterly mob with chips on our shoulders.

From what I’ve read in the thread and in the media, the most concerning issue isn’t about being sexist.

So if it is sexist for an all women panel to choose a man to deal with period poverty would it be sexist for an all male panel to appoint a woman to head a campaign to highlight prostate cancer?
Or is it only sexist when women aren't chosen?

Rosie51

^Or maybe it was just a straightforward case of sexism with a side order of cronyism? You decide.^

On the balance of probability and logic I tend more towards this ↑↑

than ^a mob of unhinged obsessives with chips on their shoulders,^

Reasonable choice.

Or maybe it was just a straightforward case of sexism with a side order of cronyism? You decide.

On the balance of probability and logic I tend more towards this ↑↑

than a mob of unhinged obsessives with chips on their shoulders,

Indeed so.

How about the fact that they say he wasn't working at the College when the article says he was, and that somebody somewhere decided he was the "period tsar"?

Lots of people jumping to conclusions here, aren't there?

Ah well. At least they are now getting a fair hearing, and those sitting on sex-discrimination tribunals are less likely to jump to conclusions based on the fact that they are women.

Maybe the women complaining that they were pushed out after doing the groundwork so that he could be shoehorned into an internal role despite not working for the college are a mob of unhinged obsessives with chips on their shoulders, whose unsisterly attitudes probably mean that they also object to trans rights activism?

Yes, probably.

Interesting .

Maybe the women complaining that they were pushed out after doing the groundwork so that he could be shoehorned into an internal role despite not working for the college are a mob of unhinged obsessives with chips on their shoulders, whose unsisterly attitudes probably mean that they also object to trans rights activism?

Or maybe it was just a straightforward case of sexism with a side order of cronyism? You decide.

The latest updates.

twitter.com/forwomenscot/status/1569433868444344320?s=21&t=vcZaXdxX9YfIgwRW6p-E4A

twitter.com/ayrshirelass13/status/1569454251348316161?s=21&t=jg8RGkQ3ENO9zMY1M4nmUw

Nowhere is exempt from cronyism. From the Prime Minister onwards. That is why transparency should be mandatory in public appointments.

Some years ago, y DD was a 'youth representative' on an interview panel for a Youth Leader.
The adults on the panel were all women.
The best candidate was a man but they asked him flippant, sexist questions and, in the end, appointed their female friend as they'd intended all along.

Of course cronyism happens.

JaneJudge I watch Pointless sometimes on day-time TV and I'm beginning to think this whole thread is just that.

MerylStreep

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.

Or someone is in line for the post but, because it is in the public sector, it has to be advertised externally and other candidates interviewed, raising their expectations and wasting their time.
Sometimes it's a case of 'it's not what you know, it's who you know'.

volver

Careful Glorianny you'll get nowhere here with your fancy ideas about satire. ?

Had to explain it anyway volver which sort of lessens the impact. But if you don't some people think you are serious! Maybe we need a special emoji.

You may not think you are the cause of this debacle, but you are.
OK, I'll admit it

I am Spartacus

So if what you said wasn’t the truth, which one were you using Volver?