One of today's General Assembly motions demands that every third Friday become a McGill-wide holiday known as "No Pants Friday." On this day, students "would not be persecuted for a lack of pants." As dedicated students, we must defend our rights and reject this motion. If passed, it could threaten the fundamental pillars on which our student government consistently stands.
First off, neither Max Silverman nor GRASPé sponsored the No Pants Friday motion. Consequently, there is no precedent for it. Students wouldn't know how to deal with such an innovation, and it could be horribly mismanaged. Would these pants-less students be unionized, and would their holiday meal be vegan-friendly?
The wording of the motion is also brutal and archaic, because the term "pants" is not gender neutral. The word "pants" is short for "pantaloons," which get their name from the Italian comedic character Pantalone, who is a codpiece-wearing male. Any motion that contains words which originated prior to the emancipation of women ought to be considered unconstitutional, as it makes students feel unsafe and unwelcome. Reminding females of Pantalone and his codpiece is oppressive and perpetuates the patriarchy and heteronormative gender binary that currently dominates McGill.
On a more political note, when we pass motions, we should reflect on how they will impact the Students' Society's relationship with the administration. At last November's GA, we established that Heather Munroe-Blum is a flesh-eating demon, and censured her for this. But she might see the No Pants Friday motion as a concession. Munroe-Blum occasionally wears skirts, and this motion could make her feel comfortable while she enacts torturous policies on campus.
The No Pants Friday motion also stands in direct conflict with SSMU's policies towards Hema-Quebec. Some members of Hema-Quebec might enjoy No Pants Friday, and would therefore be more likely to host a blood drive near campus, and feel slightly less guilty about it.
Be the first to comment on this story