BREASTFEEDING POLICY

Hiya Everyone,

On Friday 27^th March, the Board passed our new Breastfeeding Policy. This is something that I, as Wom*n’s Portfolio Holder, am immensely proud to have written and put forward for the Board’s consideration. This forms one crucial part of the Parenting Review that I’m working on at the moment. I’m investigating ways that students whom are parents are treated on campus and how accessible services and spaces are to them.

The Breastfeeding Policy comes in two parts; policy and procedure. 

1. Policy:

• Breastfeeding is welcome in all USU public, student and designated spaces.
• It is at the feeding parent’s discretion whether they choose to cover or not cover exposed breasts; either is welcome.
• In addition to public, student and designated spaces, the USU will seek to provide spaces to address the needs of persons to breastfeed eg. Wom*n’s Room (Manning Building) and Parent’s Room (Wentworth Building).

2. Procedure:

• Elements of this policy will be contained in the Staff Handbook and available for access on the USU intranet.
• Elements of this policy will be included in all relevant staff training sessions.
• Signage stating that breastfeeding is welcome in USU spaces will be made visible in all USU buildings.
• The USU will seek to maintain listing on the Breastfeeding Welcome Here venues list provided by the Australian Breastfeeding Association.
• New requests for parent spaces will be governed by the Dedicated Spaces Policy.

Breastfeeding isn’t restricted to parents’ rooms or designated facilities, parents can breastfeed at all USU spaces including public and student spaces.

The policy is effective immediately.

So what does this mean?

In June 2011 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) established breastfeeding as a new separate ground of discrimination. Breastfeeding is defined as the act of expressing milk and includes a single act of breastfeeding and breastfeeding over a period of time. Despite this, we know that mothers regularly experience discrimination in open areas and on social media for choosing to breastfeed in plain sight. Facebook and Instagram have both been attacked for removing photographs of mothers feeding their children. [1] This has resulted in fantastic campaigns such as #normalisebreastfeeding[2]

#normalisebreastfeeding - a collection of photos

As such, this policy seeks to further iterate the Union’s commitment to fostering a safe and welcoming atmosphere for all. We believe that it is a mother’s right to feed their child anytime, anywhere and that’s why we passed this policy. Its practical applications pave the way for more parent-specific rooms across campus and we look forward to working with the SRC, SUPRA and the University to make this happen.

As I said, this is just one part of a big Parenting Review that I’m currently working on - so stay tuned for more!

KATE BULLEN
WOM*N'S PORTFOLIO HOLDER - BOARD DIRECTOR

---

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11195373/Facebook-removes-mothers-breastfeeding-photo.html

[2] http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/breastfeeding/the-breastfeeding-selfie-trend-that-wants-to-normalisebreastfeeding-20140606-39myo.html

EXPULSION OF A UNION MEMBER

EDIT: The Board unanimously moved all recommendations discussed in this post on 31 October 2014. However, due to incorrect notice provided by the President, the two expulsion motions were rescinded and later re-moved on 28 November 2014.

At the Meeting of the Board of Directors on 28 November 2014, the Board unanimously resolved to expel a Union member for the first time in recent memory.

Context

On October 14, it was reported in Honi Soit that a current Union member had had nude photos disseminated throughout the University community by Alexander Wright (AID: 728288). This was a series of actions that Mr Wright had admitted to both the survivor and her family. She has suffered in public spaces and amongst Union members and events in ways that have been devastating for her welfare. On October 16, Mr Wright then attended a Union event alongside the survivor. Following concerns and reports of intimidation of both the survivor and other Union members, he was requested to exit the venue by Staff.

The conversations that ensued raised questions of the extent to which, by remaining silent, the Union was abrogating its constitutional responsibilities to provide and maintain safe spaces. We are bound to work "at all times towards creating an environment free from all forms of discrimination and harassment,” and this is a commitment that must extend as much as possible beyond autonomous spaces and events.

Given that, the Board unanimously resolved the following on 31 October:

Recommendation 1: That the Board voice its commitment to maintaining environments that are safe and free from harassment.

Following their rescission due to the abovementioned procedural error, the following recommendations were unanimously approved on 28 November:

Recommendation 2: That, pursuant to section 9.2(f)(ii) of the USU Constitution, the Board expel Alexander Wright (AID: 728288) from Membership of the USU.

Recommendation 3: Following Recommendation 2, and pursuant to section 9.2(f)(iii), that the Board debar Alexander Wright (AID: 728288) from exercising the rights of Membership until it resolve otherwise.

Procedure

As noted, Recommendations Two and Three were moved according to the following sections of the USU Constitution:

9.2(f) Should any Member neglect to pay any sum to the USU or in the opinion of the Board be guilty of misconduct, the Board may:

(i) take legal action;
(ii) expel such Member from Membership of the USU; or
(iii) debar such Member from exercising the rights of Membership for such time as it thinks fit provided that:

A. such Member of Members shall have the right to an appeal to the University;
B. the Board may not delegate its authority in such a matter;
C. such Member shall be informed of the matters to be raised against that Member;
D. such Member shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard but shall not be represented before a decision is made.

Recommendations Two and Three were moved under an interpretation of the text that subsections (ii) and (iii) were not mutually exclusive. Moreover, the absence of a definition of expulsion was found to require a time period, provided in Recommendation Three.

One week prior to the Meeting, Mr Wright was given notice due under s 9.2(f)(iii)(C), and was offered the opportunity to speak to the Recommendations under s 9.2(f)(iii)(D). He retains the right to appeal to the University Senate under s 9.2(f)(iii)(A).

Towards a safe campus community

These resolutions stand as a crucial reinforcement of the Board’s commitment to protecting the safety and welfare of its Members. Where Members have their welfare jeopardised, it is the duty of the Union to ensure that this is not perpetuated or worsened in its own spheres. We should actively enter debate and tirelessly pursue the avenues available to us to uphold the values we are bound to.

If you or someone you know has either experienced harassment or feels unsure about an unwanted experience and would like to speak with someone, please contact the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital on (02) 9515 9040. The University’s Counselling and Psychological Services can also be contacted on (02) 8627 8433. Alternatively, the Board are always available to put you in contact with the relevant resources and service providers.

OLIVIA RONAN
BOARD DIRECTOR

SLUT SHAMING

Recently I did an assignment about the invention and legalisation of the contraceptive pill in the U.S, combine that with the hugely successful inaugural Radical Sex and Consent Day hosted last month, and the disgraceful celeb nude photo hacking scandal, and I’ve had a lot of thoughts bouncing around my feminist head.

I’ve been thinking how great it is that we’re so lucky to have access to contraception, and sex education here in Australia. Woo hoo! We’re free and we can all have great sex with each other, and express ourselves sexually in any way we want to, and the only thing that matters is that it’s completely consensual and safe. And in an ideal world, that would be it. But sadly, that isn’t where we live. We live in a world where when wom*n’s nude photos are leaked they are told that it’s their own fault for taking the photos in the first place.

We live in a world where Cosmopolitan magazine tells wom*n that to attract the man of their dreams they should be ‘flirty… but not too flirty, because he needs to know there’s still a bit of work involved to snag you’. We are advised to ‘lightly graze his arm’ and ‘when talking eye-to-eye, tilt your face downward while pushing your chin slightly forward, [because] research shows this angle makes your features seem softer and more feminine.’ Apparently ‘uberconfidence is practically catnip to men’ and we should ‘work just a sliver of skin into the ensemble [because] it’ll get his blood pumping, but leaves enough to his imagination that he’ll be dying for a peek at the rest.’ Oh and last but not least, when you’re parting for the evening, catch his gaze and coyly linger there for a few seconds.

It all comes down to this: we should be confident but not slutty. We should at all times remain a ‘lady’. We’re not supposed, or even allowed, to want sex.

Earlier this year, British TV-personality Stephen Fry claimed that: “Women only go to bed with men because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship.” He went on to say that if women really did want sex there would be ‘straight cruising areas’ like there are gay cruising areas, and women everywhere would be in bushes shagging strangers. “But there aren’t, because the only women who have sex like that expect to be paid for it.” Said Fry.

I found a quote on the internet that says men are allowed to have bountiful sexual encounters because “a key that opens many doors is called a master key, but a lock that opens for many keys is a shitty lock." Enter Samantha Jones: seen by many as a sexual hero to wom*n everywhere. When Sex and the City was released it was heralded as a burgeoning sexual revolution that would lead to barriers being broken down everywhere. Wom*n could finally have sex like men!

Or can they? The evidence continues to stack up that wom*n whom are sexually confident are bad, evil whores. Take the following for example: In 2012, Rush Limbaugh, America’s answer to Alan Jones, called student Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute live on air when she argued that contraceptives should be covered by Obamacare. Earlier this year, Senator Abetz stupidly (and very mistakenly) said that wom*n who have abortions increase their risk of getting breast cancer.

·       And news headlines like, “I’ve slept with so many guys and am terrified my partner will find out,” make wom*n question; just how many is too many? Additionally, the following online lists continue to police wom*n’s behaviour in not only the public sphere of popular culture, but everywhere:

• Top Ten Movie Sluts: including Mrs Robinson from the Graduate, Rizzo from Grease and Regina George from Mean Girls
• Top Ten Celebs Who We Think Are Probably Sluts. The list is mostly wom*n, (the only man is Justin Bieber) and features Scarlett Johansson, Taylor Swift, Rhianna and Christina Aguilera. (Don’t worry Xtina you’re still beautiful to me)
• Top Ten Favourite Movie Sluts. Kathryn from Cruel Intentions, Jenny from Forrest Gump and Lara from The Rules of Attraction; just to name a few.

When I googled "slut" this came up

I don’t know about you but I’m pretty unhappy with the ideas of having casual sexual partners and low standards of cleanliness being conflated. And this word ‘slut’ keeps coming up again and again. This idea is super damaging to young wom*n, just getting to know their bodies and are constantly being told how to dress, how not to dress, how to act, how not to act; a constant job of balancing being ‘uberconfident’ but not slutty.

I’m not pretending to know the answer. 

But I know that we need more articles like this:

·       http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marrie-lobel/shedding-light-on-the-myt_b_5001326.html

·       And this, http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/sex-happens-why-theres-nothing-wrong-with-getting-into-bed-on-the-first-date-20140708-zsyh8.html

And I know that wom*n can and should dress/act/dance however they want, whenever and wherever they want. The road to true sexual equality across the gender spectrum is a long one but I think we’re one step closer with festivals like Radical Sex and Consent Day. 

I turn now to the words of ever-inspiring Tina Fey,

KATE BULLEN

WOM*N'S PORTFOLIO HOLDER - BOARD DIRECTOR

WOM*N'S LEADERSHIP IN THE UNION AND BEYOND

Hiya there!

I wrote this blog post on the 3^rd of October- exactly three months since I introduced myself to you via this very blog. Since then, I have been busying myself pouring over facts and figures, researching the Union's history, and talking to as many people as possible regarding wom*n’s involvement and leadership within the Union.

It seems to be that wom*n’s leadership is discussed a lot these days. Companies, charities and political parties are all eager to look like they’re doing something for wom*n. Yet it doesn’t seem to be making much of an impact on younger wom*n; the wom*n who need this encouragement most.

A recent study conducted by the children’s charity Plan found that 1% of Australian girls between 14 and 25 want to go into politics. 49% of the same group think that sexism affects the career path they choose, and half believe that sexist attitudes in Australia are actually increasing.

So why don’t wom*n want to get out there, lead the country and change the world? And since university is a microcosm of the real world, surely we have a duty to change this. To make sure that anybody, of any gender identity feels like they can study what they want, and pursue a career they can be passionate about or even just have fun in whatever hobbies they choose? 

We’re not doing too badly. Wom*n’s participation in the Union has gone from strength to strength over the past few years. Over half of our 11-strong Student Board identify as wom*n, and we have our fourth wom*n-identifying President in a row. Not so long ago, this would have been unthinkable.

The reason that we can be so proud of having so many great wom*n at the top is undoubtedly because of strategies such as Affirmative Action (commonly referred to as AA). AA has been in place in the Board of Director elections since 2007 and our provisions require that 2 out of every 5 candidates elected in an even-ending year, and 3 out of 6 in an odd-ending year be wom*n-identifying. Additionally, half of all editing teams (BULL magazine and Hermes) and all committees (Clubs and Societies and Debates) must be wom*n.

For further info on our AA policy, including when and why it was implemented, please see here: http://usu.edu.au/About-Us/Side-Callouts/About-Us.aspx

Two years ago, these policies were reviewed in what became a landmark of recent Union history: the Affirmative Action (AA) Review. In over 40 pages it handed down 17 recommendations targeted at how we can improve wom*n’s participation in every level of the Union. Amongst other things, it suggested that we implement AA in the Model Constitution of Clubs and Societies. Yet two years on, this still hasn’t been implemented.

So that’s why this Wednesday, 8^th of October, I’m hosting a members’ forum to gather feedback on both broad and specific issues relating to wom*n’s participation and leadership within the University of Sydney community. I want to find out what has changed since 2012, if anything.
I want to hear what you think about wom*n in the arts, clubs and societies, student leadership, representation, what issues we should be addressing to create change and how we communicate our strategies to the broader student community. And the only way I can truly know the state of the Union is to ask YOU.

For the Facebook event, see here: https://www.facebook.com/events/1506167239631134/

The discussion paper, 25 pages of my feminist heart and soul on paper in ink form, is available here:  http://bit.ly/1rJWKYAs

The forum will be held in two parts; autonomous and non-autonomous. The autonomous session will be held at 5pm in The Wom*n’s Room, Level One of Manning House. It is open to all those whom identify as, or whom have lived experience as a wom*n. All who feel they meet that criteria are welcome and the Union does not believe in gender-policing. 

The non-autonomous session will begin at 6.15pm in the McCallum Cullen Room, Holme Building.

For more information please do not hesitate to contact me on k.bullen@usu.edu.au

As usual, I will also be available to chat in the Wom*n’s Room during my consultation hours on Wednesday between 2-4pm.

For more information on the Plan study mentioned earlier, see here: http://www.plan.org.au/Media/Media-Releases/20141001-Growing-sexism-forcing-girls-women-away-from-life-as-leaders-new-survey.aspx

KATE BULLEN

WOM*N'S PORTFOLIO HOLDER - BOARD DIRECTOR

IN DEFENCE OF RADICAL SEX AND CONSENT DAY

The 11^th Speaker on Monday’s ‘Town Hall in the Great Hall’ discussion on fee regulation declared:

“Opponents [of deregulation]… have no problem with student money being used to hold a ‘radical sex week.’” http://honisoit.com/2014/08/live-blog-town-hall-meeting-at-the-great-hall/

Credit: Alexandra Mildenhall

While I dispute that opponents of fee deregulation have bizarrely united to support the USU’s Radical Sex and Consent Day, they (nay, all students!) undoubtedly should.

Radical Sex and Consent Day encourages the re-learning of the abysmal Sex Education taught in school. Unlike your year 10 Health Class, RSCD will acknowledge that sex is about more than ‘not having it,' STIs, and avoiding pregnancy. It aims to educate students on classroom silences like queer sex, kink and the female orgasm (spoiler alert: it exists).

But more than vulva puppets and blindfolded lube tasting, Radical Sex and Consent Day is about starting a conversation. A conversation that seeks to normalise students speaking about sex, personal boundaries, and seeking active consent. 

Credit: Liam Carrigan

People have commented to me in the past week that the proposition on the RSCD T-Shirts ‘you don’t owe sex to anyone’ isn’t very radical. However, even in our progressive campus bubble, unwanted sexual behavior is commonplace.

At the USU Board Election Soapbox this year a candidate was heckled about her appearance before she could even begin speaking about her policies. Non-consensual waist touching is commonplace when students speak to each other at Manning and Hermann’s. Earlier this week a tutor of mine asked my class if a lawyer could argue a wom*n consented to sex if she was ‘dressed like a prostitute.’ As if that was something that was ever okay to posit, even in the hypothetical.

Even more telling is that while wearing the RSCD shirt a member of the organising team was catcalled on King-Street: “You owe sex to me love!”

If Radical Sex and Consent Day isn’t worth student money then please tell me what is.

BEBE D'SOUZA

Vice-President / Director of Radical Sex and Consent Day

You can read about the full line up for Radical Sex and Consent Day here:

http://www.usu.edu.au/Bars-Events/Festivals/Radical-Sex-and-Consent/Radical-Sex-and-Consent.aspx