Two interpretations of the Leadership and Representation policy are being considered by SUSU, including only being allowed to vote for people of your own gender.
The policy, passed at the AGM, was a divisive issue within the Union at the time, with three newly elected sabbatical officers speaking against the gender balancing as drafted by two outgoing sabbs.
I don’t agree with this policy, because if the type of genitals you have or how you choose to define yourself is a bigger factor than simply capability to do a role, this goes against the entire principle of elections. The real question is would anyone want to be elected to their position over a better and more popular candidate simply because they were the opposite gender? Since the policy came through the AGM, it’s here to stay – barring another general meeting or a referendum.
I spoke to Femsoc vice–president and vocal supporter of the gender balancing policy, Tom Coole, who believes the AGM did the right thing:
I’m really pleased that this proposal did pass and is being implemented, and I think it has the potential to be a big step forward for gender equality and the position of women in SUSU. Obviously, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t be a need for this policy, but I think this policy being in place in the present will encourage more women to come forward, make them feel that they really can influence things, and eventually there won’t be any need for gender balancing in the future.
A document sent to democracy zone members, seen by the Soton Tab, sets out two possible interpretations of the policy, one of which would prevent SUSU members voting for representatives of the opposite gender.
Faculty and union councillor elections in SUSU are set to change
The document also considers the issue of gender identity, warning that candidates would be required to “explicitly define as either a man or woman” and that “electors [could] represent themselves as defining into a gender with the […] purpose of disrupting an election.”
This will obviously have implications for candidates and voters who may not wish to – or feel able to – identify as one gender. Okay, it’s a small minority, but not one anyone would wish to alienate from the democratic processes of the union. Tom is also concerned about this aspect:
What bothers me most particularly is the need for people to self identify as either male or female, and I think that is particularly problematic because it does reinforce the gender binary and, as noted, could make things difficult for people of other genders. I think this is a weakness that perhaps should have been considered when the proposal was written, and I think it’s going to be difficult to iron out.
Tom also raised concerns about the idea of only electing candidates of your declared gender:
I’m not sure I like the idea of running distinct elections with certain positions just for women and men, I think that could just reinforce the idea that women aren’t good enough to compete with men.
While this is true, I think a more significant issue is that it would suggest that people of one gender can’t and shouldn’t be expected to represent the views and needs of people of the other gender. This is the true heart of the issue for me. There would be minimal change to the actual candidates elected (if these rules had been in place last year, only one faculty position would have changed hands, for example) but it will do damage to the mandates of those elected under the new SUSU system.
Tom, on the other hand, feels that the positive outweighs the negative.
This whole gender balancing thing certainly isn’t perfect, but I’m sure, like all good policies, it will be organic and evolve, and it is certainly a step in the right direction.
What do you think of these changes to SUSU elections? Let us know in the comments.
INTERVIEW: VP Engagement candidates
Another Sabb Candidate Withdraws
SUSU Cuts Grad Ball Ticket Price
bit sexist
Reply
Hope we get the opportunity to vote Roni in the female elections.
ZING!
Reply
susu lives in a dreamworld, so far out of touch with anyone
Reply
Really? I’ve been to AGM and if that’s dreamworld, then I don’t want a subconscious any more.
Reply
“Obviously, in an ideal world, there shouldn’t be a need for this policy, but I think this policy being in place in the present will encourage more women to come forward, make them feel that they really can influence things, and eventually there won’t be any need for gender balancing in the future.”
The problem with this kind of logic is that nobody ever specifies WHEN or HOW we’ll make a decision about whether such a policy is still needed.
Reply
Doesn’t go far enough. Let’s have separate elections for race, religion and sexual orientation.
Oh, and only white, protestant land owners should be allowed to vote.
Reply
In a perfect world, this policy wouldn’t be needed. But it’s true that less women are elected not due to lack of skill, but the attitude of society in regards to women within politics. We are all bombarded everyday with messages that women are passive and weak, whilst men are active and strong. We see it in advertisement, media, and the fact that due to centuries of sexism men are more commonly in roles of power. All this policy does is balance this natural sexism out, until eventually society has evolved enough to not need it. It’s very easy as a man to reject this idea, because you’ve never felt the brunt of the issues it is trying to fix.
Reply
There was a time in the not so distant past (2007-2009) where we had 2 female Union presidents and a sabbatical team that was made up of a majority of women.
I think SUSU is one of the most progressive student organisations (there was a black female president in 1985 – Merzaline Parchment)
I hope that whoever takes this forward doesn’t forget that in actual fact most people at Southampton have been voting for the best candidate for some time now.. regardless of their gender, race, sexuality…
Reply
Pretty sure the original motion means we’re long past that.
Reply
This idea is completely stupid. If a better candidate loses out on the position as the numbers need to be made up for a certain gender thats not a true vote.
If all the better candidates are women then they should all win, and a male should be able to vote for all those candidates if he thinks they better represent his views. He shouldn’t be forced to vote for a worse candidate just because they are a male. Same applies the other way round. What’s wrong with an all male team if they’re voted as better by the majority of students.
Ridiculous idea!
Reply
We had this debate on another article. This is ludicrous, we’re seeking gender equality yet considering to introduce separate elections for the genders. It’s an insult to women to suggest they need to run in a separate election to males to stand a chance of winning votes. If we’re concerned with the ratio of males to females in the union we should focus on encouraging females to run in the elections. There are more males simply because more tend to run for positions, not because they’re inherently better candidates or the voting population is sexist. The elections are meant to be a democratic process and to bring in such an undemocratic scheme certainly grinds my gears… I’m surprised members of femsoc are supporting such a disgraceful, sexist scheme.
Reply
I don’t think it’s at all fair to assume the voting population isn’t influenced by the sexist society we live in. To say they would vote fairly, based on credit, simply isn’t true. Whether people like to admit it or not, we’re all affected by the way women are portrayed in our society, and of course this influences are voting. There are countless studies showing that when placed on an even playing field, people will choose men over women purely based on their gender. Until this isn’t the case anymore, policy like this is essential to increasing the number of women elected.
Reply
I don’t think it’s at all fair to assume that students are brainless, passive idiots who’ll vote a certain way because of the horrible, reductive ways women are referenced in public life, in fact that’s very elitist and patronizing of you.
Reply
No, it’s simply the human condition to be influenced by your environment. I’m not assuming anything, I’m merely referring the fact that many studies have proven this effect. Some of the smartest and best people I know have shown sexist attitudes that are so implicit they’re not even aware of it. I myself have in fact on occasion realised this about myself, and I consider myself a feminist. For you not to see that this happens is sadly ignorant, and optimistic. I wish the world worked that way, believe me.
Reply
Praise the lord there are demigods like you out there to tell us that we are all intrinsically sexist!
Reply
The more you force this in peoples faces the more you try to make it an issue when it never was one to start with.
The majority of people go based on what they believe in and gender never played a part.
We used to listen to what people said, not what gender they were. While trying to come up with a solution to a non-problem you’re instead creating the problem you wanted to avoid in the first place!
Reply
It may be hard for you to understand from the plinth of enlightenment you’ve elected yourself to, but I was actually aware of the basic fact that individuals are influenced by the world they live in, and could have predicted you’d end up by calling me ignorant, which seems to be the new ad hominem. Try harder?
For what my opinion is worth, I agree with you that internalized misogyny is a serious social problem. Believing this gives you unique authority to manipulate and condescend to voter behaviour, however, is terrible and defenceless.
Reply
Worst. Idea. Ever.
Gender segregation will *definitely* help equality.
Reply
Pretty sure I’ve commented this before, but it’s getting easier and easier *not* to “get involved”. An independent students union run by some students might be nice. But would anyone reeeally give a shit, even then? Life’s too short…
Reply
As I remember the AGM, I believe the split was very close. In fact, i’m pretty sure the difference between yes and no votes for a giant cat statue (which as susu cat i’m in favour of) was greater than that of the vote mentioned in this article. Surely with such a big issue, and such a close vote. We have to consider alternatives. I understand it sort of undermines the point of democracy, but they’ve unintentionally split the university pretty much down the middle for those that are for and against, creating yet another gap in the equality of students.
Reply
…. But equal.
Reply
This is a joke article, right?
Reply
This is an example of fairly typical poor tab journalism.
You’ve reported on a small aspect of a paper no one can see without even talking to anyone involved in the committee you’re referencing.
You ignore the fact that this is about electing in the reflective membership of council, aimed at being a body which roughly reflects the makeup of the student body, which includes positions restricted to post grads, specific faculties, international students, and to reflect the gender split of the Uni now different genders.
What was the other proposal? And why did you not feel the need to include the other for context?
An opinion piece is not free reign to hide half the facts and mislead the readers. If you have an issue with the paper then publish the whole of it and interview those actually involved giving a chance to explain rather than using it as leverage to construct a fairly unhelpful straw man argument.
Although, if you’re going for stoking controversy in the comments, increasing hits, and distorting the public view of this policy, then keep it up.
Reply
Then why is this all being done in secret? Why can “no one see” these papers? is this a students union or a “people in the know” union…
If it werent for this article, I wouldnt know this was happening. Where could I have found out?
Reply
You write for the Scene right? Fully balanced writings that speak to all parties involved and try and be as impartial as possible are exactly the kinds of things that no-one ever reads.
Reply
Your central argument is that the tab is guilty of negativistic reporting which distorts the true picture.
Which is funny because the anonymous talking heads of SUSU who troll the tab completely overlook the range of ethically engaged articles on here.
Reply
I have to assume that this is an intricate social experiment being performed by the SUSU, because the alternative is that they are being absolutely serious about this laughably counter-intuitive ‘feminist’ policy.
Reply
This is utter garbage. This union is weak
Reply
What the fcuk has happened to this uni? Ridiculous. No wonder why people avoid union events/nights/elections…
Reply
Bloody stupid! That is the kind of rule I would expect from the backwood hick schools well out of the way of society to create! How does allowing only men vote for men or women for women help? Also what about transgendered students that aren’t ‘out’ to the uni?
Reply
This has left me utterly shocked… this is something I would have expected to see before the emancipation… its segregation, i want to be allowed to vote for the BEST candidate for the job, Im am utterly disappointed and horrified at the idea that this has even been considered… what the f*** are you doing susu
Reply
Really?!? What a waste of time, money and effort… there is no need for this policy. If there is an issue then why in the past 10 years have there been two female SUSU Presidents… if we had an issue that would be zero… Two of the current 7 sabs are female…. and many of the student leaders are female….
Can people in SUSU please stop dreaming up issues and actually address real issues impacting students e.g. £9k fees, safety, welfare, working space etc etc
Reply
Why are you stating that 2 in 10, or 2 in 7 is something we should celebrate? Women take up over half the uni, and so should have been a lot more present in the election roles. Thanks to this policy, they now will be.
Reply
Well why don’t the 56% female population just vote all female then? Maybe it is because they were voting for the best candidate?
Reply
Well, there’s not been a disabled jewish half chinese, half ethiopian post-op trans-sexual president/sabb before so why don’t you create a separate election for those people too? You moron.
Reply
I’m stating these numbers Annon because we’re not living in an era where females can’t achieve positions of power/authority. The numbers suggest women have achieved positions of office in SUSU and it is not a male dominated environment! If we had no female representation on committee then yes we have a problem. The only problem here is the large amount of staff time being pissed away on such a ridiculous issue, time that could be better spent on more pressing issues and remember time is money, money that could be better spent elsewhere. If you check the SUSU records of votes () you’ll see that many females entered the elections however there were more male entrants… the issue is at grass routes on encouraging able women to stand not in forcing a split of the vote. So my advice to SUSU is to take your head out your arse, grow up and focus on a real issue.
Reply
Sexism lives!
Reply
So we can expect a good number of asian sabs to represent the large number of Asian students?
This policy is a subversion of democracy. The voters choices are biased so we will fix their ability to choose… in a democratic but sexist society of course more men are elected. You don’t fix that by having afirmitive action in the polling.
Reply
>I think this policy being in place in the present will encourage more women to come forward, make them feel that they really can influence things
So by this logic, should we also have blacks-only elections where only black people can vote for black candidates?
Or is it only women who are special?
Reply
There’s so…. SO much wrong with this vapid, insipid, myopic, pandering bullshit it’ll make your head spin. Forcing people to vote for an underrepresented group is bad enough, but trying to reduce sexism by preventing men from voting for women is utter unbridled insanity.
Reply
Feminism is the belief that both sexes may become equal by focusing solely on one of them.
Reply
Ridiculous. If I think a man has a better manifesto I should be able to vote for them. As I’m white, should I only be allowed to vote for white candidates?
Reply
Are you straight too? English? THEN DON’T VOTE FOR GAY FOREIGNERS.
It sounds crass but it’s an absolutely valid point- forcing representation on one underrepresented minority implicitly reduces the perception of the importance of others.
Reply