We must fight against the existence of men’s officers, and attempt to prevent the creation of any new men’s officers
This move was justified at the NUS conference in part for this reason:
Student Unions should not be reinforcing the gender binary on campus as it goes against the concept of safe space as self defining trans students may feel they do not fit or are alienated from their own Student Union
I know a lot of us are used to this kind of thing by now, but consider just how radical this is. If something is specifically identified as male, the feminists are complaining that this supports a gender binary (i.e. the existence of two sexes male and female), which is then oppressive to "self-defining trans students." The expectation is that men shouldn't organise as men for fear that this might limit the opportunity for some transsexual students to self-define their own gender identity.
But doesn't the existence of women's organisations do the same thing? No, they get a free pass because:
Women's Groups do not exist to facilitate stereotypical women's activities, but to campaign for liberation against the repression women face and as such do not represent an extension of the gender binary and do not encroach on safe space
The feminists are trying to have it both ways. They want to be able to put out pamphlets with slogans such as "Women: innovating, leading & liberating" whilst still pretending that they are not upholding one side of the traditional man/woman gender binary.
The pamphlet put out by the NUS to campaign against men's officers is interesting for other reasons. For instance, there is a section opposing the sexual objectification of women. The feminist complaint (p.9) is that:
Objectification deprives women of their power to define what is beautiful, what is sexy, what is desirable, and places this power in the hands of the (male) viewer/judge.
So women are to define for themselves what is beautiful and desirable? Sorry sisters, it doesn't work that way, no matter how much you want it to. First, beauty has an essential character and can't be redefined in a direction of our own choosing. Second, the nature of relationships can't be so one-sided. Feminists cannot define for men what men find attractive in women. These feminists are so focused on female "agency" that they think it can be extended even to the sphere of relationships, as if men had no "agency" of their own.
Then there's the thorny issue for feminists of individual choice. Feminists believe that there are no objective moral goods, only the good of unfettered individual choice. But if this is so, then how can they oppose women choosing to pole dance, or wear sexy clothes? Well, the contorted argument they give is this one:
The idea that feminists are trampling women’s rights to behave as they like is a red herring. Likewise, arguing that women are ‘empowered’ by pole dancing lessons, naked calendars and sexy lingerie is too much of a generalisation. Just because someone says they know one or two women who enjoy it does not prove that every woman is therefore automatically required to put up and shut up. Women are empowered when they define their own sexuality and sexual expression, and when they are not penalised for avoiding mainstream definitions. The ‘right’ to get naked and exhibit yourself for male pleasure is not addressed in the Geneva Convention on Human Rights, but just because a woman has chosen to do it does not make it right or OK for every woman.
It's as if they expect that sexuality can exist in a vacuum. Every woman would choose her own sexuality, with no influence from men or society, and none would be penalised by her choice.
That might maximise female agency in the abstract but it's useless as a way of understanding how a sexual culture changes in practice.
How did Western sexual culture get to be the way it is? In part, because feminists themselves insisted on 'liberating' women sexually, by which they meant women choosing relationships for sex alone, rather than for love or marriage. When that happens women are more likely to choose player types, and in such a culture, in which people are increasingly selecting on the basis of sexual attractiveness alone, men are more likely to think of women in terms of "hotness".
If you want to change this, then you have to think not in terms of female agency alone, but in terms of what men and women are selecting for, how they influence the behaviour of the opposite sex with their choices, how they reward or punish the opposite sex with their choices, the influence of moral codes and so on.
But it's not possible to tweak the outcomes so that every woman can present herself in any way she wants with no penalty. If a woman chooses to be unlovely, then no amount of indoctrination will make her appealing to the average man.