So many people are full of hate if they cannot accept a man in a particular role.
[deleted]
> A spokesperson for the working group said: “It is regrettable that given the threats and abuse levelled at individuals in recent weeks, the period dignity regional lead officer role will not continue.
So (presumably mostly women) who spoke out over a mans appointment in a care role have managed to kneecap the care provided by getting the role pulled entirely?
Great job. Well done.
Excellent, everybody knows men cannot comprehend women’s issues. This is the reason a male surgeon will never operate on a woman and vice versa /s
Meh, right decision, but for the wrong reasons. It’s generally less than ideal to have a candidate with zero personal experience or insight in a managerial position, whatever the subject may be. Reports and training materials aren’t a substitute for a personal understanding.
I hope my council’s homelessness officer is themselves homeless, otherwise I’ll be furious.
My wife showed me about this. She wasn’t extreme in view but agreed it should have been a woman. My argument was “Why? Surely it’s better to have a man, breaking down the notion that men shouldn’t talk about periods?”. My point being if young women and young men see a man talking about periods then it normalises for everyone to talk about periods.
To those insisting only a woman should have been appointed in the first place, the article describes the role thusly:
>Mr Grant had been expected to lead a regional campaign across schools, colleges and wider communities to raise awareness of the new law and ensure that Scottish government funding is allocated appropriately.
It doesn’t sound at all like something which his sex would have been impediment against.
Ah yes a man can’t do a job that requires him to plan a campaign to raise awareness for a new law because he hasn’t had a period.
Getting rid of the role entirely is throwing the baby out with the bath water a bit, isn’t it?
It’s clear he wasn’t suitable. He’s not even dressed in period costume.
> Tennis legend Martina Navratilova had described the decision to appoint a man as “absurd”, while actress Frances Barber said she was “fuming”.
Why? A vagina isn’t a pre-requisite to organise a promotional campaign or sign contracts.
I mean, how easy would it have been to appoint a woman to lead a team of people to make an improvement in this area?
Why overcomplicate things. Use common sense and put a woman in charge of a campaign that directly impacts women.
“If you won’t let us put a man charge you can’t have it”. You couldn’t make it up ….
I find the reactions in this thread so odd. Lived experience – e.g. having experienced periods and / or menopause – will make you more suitable in talking about periods. Odd to see many people deny this. Furthermore arguments such as “well do you expect people who’ve experienced homelessness to campaign for those roles” – that would be great actually as they’ve experienced it & know first hand what people go through.
With regards to the role itself, it is a shame this has been scrapped rather than assessed.
That’s sexist.
Poor guy just lost his job cause he was male.
Appointed to a civil service role that is publicly bullied into redundancy. Yeah this guy is getting ten yrs salary and a non disclosure
Since people seem to find this hard to understand – it’s the same as having a white person be hired as officer over a POC issue.
Is the white person unable to do the job? Of course not. Is it kind of tone deaf? Yes. Not saying it’s right or wrong either way but people acting like it’s insane to question the choice of a male officer are acting purposely stupid
As a woman, I would be uncomfortable talking to a man about female reproductive health, I always choose women doctors for issues pertaining to this for this reason. No it isn’t sexism, it’s a woman’s right to feel safe discussing vulnerable topics.
The fact that a huge number of women spoke out to say they were uncomfortable with this position being held by a man and the response was “Well screw you, I guess we’ll scrap the position entirely!” feels so punitive and seems like a microcosm of women being expected to put up with uncomfortable situations “or else.”
I’m not sure why the comments are so up in arms / confused why a female in the role would make sense or be better.
Its literally a female only issue. The role states are trying to engage with groups (stakeholders) about periods.
Its not something like cancer, dementia, where there is a degree of crossover between the sexes. Its literally talking about female reproductive parts. Moreover the job role highlights the stigma around periods, so surely there’s some awareness that maybe a woman in the role would be more accessible for other women to speak their views than a man.
Especially when engaging with young people , teenage girls are more likely to be open and transparent about periods and puberty with a woman than they are a man
Its not exactly political correctness gone mad to expect such a role to go to someone from the 50% part of the population that actually experiences periods and menopause in their lifetime.
First – setting my stall out – there’s no reason why a man couldn’t have done this. I would argue that sending women to the face-to-face talks, especially for some minorities, could be seen as more helpful, but it’s not a big deal and having a male face to explain stuff to thirteen year old boys would be a plus.
But I wondered about this appointment when it happened. There must have been a number of different women candidates that were reasonably qualified and they must have known that appointing a man would generate an absolute explosion of hysteria. It hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. That poor bloke would have been working under live fire no matter what happened. It made the position almost guaranteed to be untenable and to generate all sorts of heat from both right and left wing parts of society.
It wasn’t just that they appointed a man as a candidate. He didn’t have a medical background or any trail of working with ‘wimmins issues’ that I saw. They set him up to fail, in my view. I hope he’s okay. It must have been grim being in the centre of that storm.
He was only there to help gain access to period products, right? If that’s the extent of his role, then I don’t see the problem with him being a bloke. It’s not like he was going to be offering medical care or advice on symptom management – he was handling legal stuff. What would it matter?
Man, that’s actually fucking ridiculous.
I don’t know whether I’ll be alone in saying this either, but when it comes to the subject of my reproductive health, or my health in general, as a woman I’ve always had a hard preference for male practitioners.
I’m aware that the stereotype is often told in reverse, but in my case almost every woman that I’ve seen relating to the issues I’ve had over the years, issues that would later turn out to be endometriosis and ovarian cysts, they have interacted with me haughtily and dismissively. I got the impression that they were, in my younger tears, viewing me as either a silly little girl, or in later years as an otherwise a lesser form of woman for having allowed myself to be affected by my female biology. The men on the other hand have largely come across as attentive, engaged, and possessed a genuine concern for finding a resolution for my issues.
The idea that men are unsuitable in roles in which they interact with women on women’s issues is steeped in the same sort of sexist attitude that tell women they’re not suited for roles of leadership.
Wild how many comments here saying “yeah they should have hired a woman” just making it clear *threats and abuse* are now just acceptable are they?
Hang on, they scrapped the whole role because people didn’t like their choice of who did it? Just whose dignity matters most to them after all?
What kind of a bloke applies for a job like this ?
26 comments
So many people are full of hate if they cannot accept a man in a particular role.
[deleted]
> A spokesperson for the working group said: “It is regrettable that given the threats and abuse levelled at individuals in recent weeks, the period dignity regional lead officer role will not continue.
So (presumably mostly women) who spoke out over a mans appointment in a care role have managed to kneecap the care provided by getting the role pulled entirely?
Great job. Well done.
Excellent, everybody knows men cannot comprehend women’s issues. This is the reason a male surgeon will never operate on a woman and vice versa /s
Meh, right decision, but for the wrong reasons. It’s generally less than ideal to have a candidate with zero personal experience or insight in a managerial position, whatever the subject may be. Reports and training materials aren’t a substitute for a personal understanding.
I hope my council’s homelessness officer is themselves homeless, otherwise I’ll be furious.
My wife showed me about this. She wasn’t extreme in view but agreed it should have been a woman. My argument was “Why? Surely it’s better to have a man, breaking down the notion that men shouldn’t talk about periods?”. My point being if young women and young men see a man talking about periods then it normalises for everyone to talk about periods.
To those insisting only a woman should have been appointed in the first place, the article describes the role thusly:
>Mr Grant had been expected to lead a regional campaign across schools, colleges and wider communities to raise awareness of the new law and ensure that Scottish government funding is allocated appropriately.
It doesn’t sound at all like something which his sex would have been impediment against.
Ah yes a man can’t do a job that requires him to plan a campaign to raise awareness for a new law because he hasn’t had a period.
Getting rid of the role entirely is throwing the baby out with the bath water a bit, isn’t it?
It’s clear he wasn’t suitable. He’s not even dressed in period costume.
> Tennis legend Martina Navratilova had described the decision to appoint a man as “absurd”, while actress Frances Barber said she was “fuming”.
Why? A vagina isn’t a pre-requisite to organise a promotional campaign or sign contracts.
I mean, how easy would it have been to appoint a woman to lead a team of people to make an improvement in this area?
Why overcomplicate things. Use common sense and put a woman in charge of a campaign that directly impacts women.
“If you won’t let us put a man charge you can’t have it”. You couldn’t make it up ….
I find the reactions in this thread so odd. Lived experience – e.g. having experienced periods and / or menopause – will make you more suitable in talking about periods. Odd to see many people deny this. Furthermore arguments such as “well do you expect people who’ve experienced homelessness to campaign for those roles” – that would be great actually as they’ve experienced it & know first hand what people go through.
With regards to the role itself, it is a shame this has been scrapped rather than assessed.
That’s sexist.
Poor guy just lost his job cause he was male.
Appointed to a civil service role that is publicly bullied into redundancy. Yeah this guy is getting ten yrs salary and a non disclosure
Since people seem to find this hard to understand – it’s the same as having a white person be hired as officer over a POC issue.
Is the white person unable to do the job? Of course not. Is it kind of tone deaf? Yes. Not saying it’s right or wrong either way but people acting like it’s insane to question the choice of a male officer are acting purposely stupid
As a woman, I would be uncomfortable talking to a man about female reproductive health, I always choose women doctors for issues pertaining to this for this reason. No it isn’t sexism, it’s a woman’s right to feel safe discussing vulnerable topics.
The fact that a huge number of women spoke out to say they were uncomfortable with this position being held by a man and the response was “Well screw you, I guess we’ll scrap the position entirely!” feels so punitive and seems like a microcosm of women being expected to put up with uncomfortable situations “or else.”
I’m not sure why the comments are so up in arms / confused why a female in the role would make sense or be better.
Its literally a female only issue. The role states are trying to engage with groups (stakeholders) about periods.
Its not something like cancer, dementia, where there is a degree of crossover between the sexes. Its literally talking about female reproductive parts. Moreover the job role highlights the stigma around periods, so surely there’s some awareness that maybe a woman in the role would be more accessible for other women to speak their views than a man.
Especially when engaging with young people , teenage girls are more likely to be open and transparent about periods and puberty with a woman than they are a man
Its not exactly political correctness gone mad to expect such a role to go to someone from the 50% part of the population that actually experiences periods and menopause in their lifetime.
First – setting my stall out – there’s no reason why a man couldn’t have done this. I would argue that sending women to the face-to-face talks, especially for some minorities, could be seen as more helpful, but it’s not a big deal and having a male face to explain stuff to thirteen year old boys would be a plus.
But I wondered about this appointment when it happened. There must have been a number of different women candidates that were reasonably qualified and they must have known that appointing a man would generate an absolute explosion of hysteria. It hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons. That poor bloke would have been working under live fire no matter what happened. It made the position almost guaranteed to be untenable and to generate all sorts of heat from both right and left wing parts of society.
It wasn’t just that they appointed a man as a candidate. He didn’t have a medical background or any trail of working with ‘wimmins issues’ that I saw. They set him up to fail, in my view. I hope he’s okay. It must have been grim being in the centre of that storm.
He was only there to help gain access to period products, right? If that’s the extent of his role, then I don’t see the problem with him being a bloke. It’s not like he was going to be offering medical care or advice on symptom management – he was handling legal stuff. What would it matter?
Man, that’s actually fucking ridiculous.
I don’t know whether I’ll be alone in saying this either, but when it comes to the subject of my reproductive health, or my health in general, as a woman I’ve always had a hard preference for male practitioners.
I’m aware that the stereotype is often told in reverse, but in my case almost every woman that I’ve seen relating to the issues I’ve had over the years, issues that would later turn out to be endometriosis and ovarian cysts, they have interacted with me haughtily and dismissively. I got the impression that they were, in my younger tears, viewing me as either a silly little girl, or in later years as an otherwise a lesser form of woman for having allowed myself to be affected by my female biology. The men on the other hand have largely come across as attentive, engaged, and possessed a genuine concern for finding a resolution for my issues.
The idea that men are unsuitable in roles in which they interact with women on women’s issues is steeped in the same sort of sexist attitude that tell women they’re not suited for roles of leadership.
Wild how many comments here saying “yeah they should have hired a woman” just making it clear *threats and abuse* are now just acceptable are they?
Hang on, they scrapped the whole role because people didn’t like their choice of who did it? Just whose dignity matters most to them after all?
What kind of a bloke applies for a job like this ?