I am a university student at the University of Sydney in Australia taking a government subject that is called Human Rights and Australian Politics. The topic we covered this week was labelled "gender and human rights" in the unit of study outline, but as you will see in my email to the course co-ordinator, the reality was actually quite different. My email to the subject co-ordinator-

"I was fairly disillusioned by the content in today's lecture and I wish to make you aware of my dissatisfaction. The topic of this week's lecture in the subject GOVT 2111- Human Rights and Australian Politics is clearly outlined in the unit of study guide as being "gender and human rights in Australia", yet the entire two hour lecture and both articles within the reader were completely dedicated to women's issues. Without trying to get in a political argument with you about the myth of the pay gap within contemporary Australian society, I feel that the content of this week's topic was misleading, and was clearly taught with a traditional feminist slant. I do not have a problem with women's issues and how they relate to discrimination and human rights being taught, but to only focus on women's issues when this week's topic was clearly labelled "GENDER and human rights in Australia" is dishonest, and overlooks the serious issues that are also faced by men in contemporary Australian society.

Thank you for considering my discontent. "

The reply I got was- "Thanks for sharing your views, that is a legitimate perspective. I would be interested to know what topics you would like to have covered in more detail? I did mention paternity leave. Perhaps there are other issues you would like to consider in detail that touch on rights issues and perhaps you can suggest those to us for future years. If you do, I will certainly consider them and pass the details onto Mauro, who is teaching it next year. Incidentally, when Mauro taught it, he also focussed on women’s issues. The question of gender versus women is an important issue that I did not touch on in the lecture. You are right to suggest that women does not equal gender. On the other hand, this is not always because gender = men and women, rather gender may be seen as referring to the social construction of female identity, in contrast to male. So I wouldn’t say that the title of the week was “dishonest” in its choice to focus on women. In this way, gender can be seen as the gendering of women vis-a-vis men, with men as the reference group.
I guess the major problem for me in writing the lecture is this: The world is gendered. There are different rights issues for men and women and hithero, these have not been considered in detail in the unit of study. In fact, up until now, we have assumed that these issues are identical. The position of women, as a distinctive human rights issue, does warrant one week, in a 13 week unit of study, I believe. The international level has been accused of a male bias since at least 1946, and it is necessary to address this distinctive issue in human rights, just as we focused on the bias that existed prior to acknowledgement of gay and lesbian, or indigenous rights. Women do face worse socio-economic outcomes; far higher rates of sexual assault, lower rates of formal and informal political participation in Australia, so while not in any way dismissing the position that men face issues, I do believe that one week is warranted to a distinctive focus on women. The pay gap is a myth; there is a lot of evidence that a horizontal and vertical pay gap exists. ABS data that I cited today supports this. I did point out that it is difficult to prove the sources of pay gap, which is often an argument presented against the existence of a pay gap. I did point out that private sphere gender relations could also play a causal role. I also went into some of the challenges of the ASU case, from this perspective. I also touched on issues of choice feminism. So I would not say that my presentation of those issues was in any way biased and in fact, pre-empted some of the concerns of those who do not believe in the gendered sources of a pay gap.
As for the question of whether the lecture was presented from a feminist perspective, I would say that this is the perspective from which the international human rights framework, and the SDA, etc, are drafted. I made efforts to clarify possible criticisms of that and to note some of the limitations and to identify critiques of the feminist perspective. Thanks for sharing your views and as noted, if you have any suggestions on how to improve the lecture material for 2012, we would be very interested to consider them. As always, I welcome a plethora of views in education and so thank you for having the courage to express your views directly to me. Although a small recommendation, not all people would necessarily be as open as me to this, so perhaps think about writing “Dear” at the start of all emails and I wouldn’t recommend accusing people of dishonesty; it is likely to irritate some, especially if it could simply be as a result of a misunderstanding with terminology, as was the case here!"

I was wondering if you guys had some advice for me to say in response? Thanks!