Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Students' Newspaper. Volume 39, Number 23. September 20, 1976

Wommen's Commission

Wommen's Commission

You wouldn't believe the pessimistic mood surrounding the Women's Commission at August Council this year. Either it was a big laugh, or else it wasn't going to work, as far as many people were concerned.

Council opened with Canterbury stating that they believed the Women's Commission was sexist (!), and should disband so that the women could attend the other commissions to push their viewpoint there. Canterbury's delegates to the women's commission had in fact put the motion on which this was based, to their SRC and had it passed.

Once the Women's Commission got underway it was patently obvious that we had a mountain of work ahead of us. We went through each motion regarding women that had been passed by other commissions at previous Councils.

We considered only one worth keeping. The remainder were vague or said nothing, and were generally inactionable. So much for letting other commissions deal with women's issues !. Not only would they have little time for this, given all the other "more important" issues they have to deal with, but the fact that the majority of delegates are men (since, as is most often the case, men are more outspoken, and dominate) means that they cannot be expected to fully understand the needs of women in the universities.

Students attending a Special General Meeting

This problem was recognised by the male delegates from Waikato, Auckland, Canterbury and Otago, who put complete faith in the judgements of their women delegates, especially in instances when there was no SRC policy to refer to.

Victoria was in a bit of a Catch 22 here: we could only put motions on the basis of SRC policy - but we hadn't known this in advance - and we could not vote for motions where we had no SRC policy to go by. This accounts for Victoria's abstentions.

I think that the Commission proved its worth. We passed some very constructive policy (see August Council notes) including the setting up of a Women's Rights Action Committee (WRAC), whereby Women's Rights officers from each campus will meet to coordinate activity and discuss ways in which policy can be actioned. The value of WRAC is that, as well as coordinating action on the campuses, it can pressure and work in conjunction with National office to get things done.

One thing WRAC cannot do, however, is make policy. This has to be done at May and August Council, and although the WRAC would be meeting at this time, a number of people (including many Victoria delegates) do not believe they should be able to meet as a commission: They believe that not enough will come forward to warrant a commission (I'll bet that no less would come up than on any other commission), and that the other commissions, where relevant, should handle women's issues.

This presupposes that they will regard women's issues as important, that they will be prepared to devote time to it, and that they will take heed of what the women say they want. I, for one, would not be prepared to risk this. Besides, there is no need. The Women's Rights Officers would all be at the Councils, so that it would not even incur any extra cost to have them meet as a commission.

As far as I can see, and from my experience of a very successful Women's Commission, a permanent Women's Commission would be a logical complement to Wrac. One would be a policymaking body, the other an actioning and coordinating body. It is, of course an ideal way of getting more women into the policy-making areas, a place where they are sadly lacking at present.

I would urge everyone to vote for continuation of the Women's Commission for the reasons I have outlined, at the Special General Meeting (SGM)