Is a Glastonbury 'safe space venue' really necessary?

twowheelsonly

What happens to members of the Sisterhood if they happen to get a good old fashioned ride off someone of the opposite sex - and pray tell actually enjoy it !!

Are they kicked out of the Sisterhood ? Banned ? Ex-Communicated ? Exorcised ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Seen it a few times at festivals to be honest (and in large mixed Saunas in Germany). Not named safe zone or Sisterhood or anything, just "nur fuer Fraauen".

alchemist33

Is there a safe space from this safe space stuff?

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

Is there a safe space from this safe space stuff?

I call it "the rest of the world".

Dyr

wakka12 wrote: »

If it makes some women happy and safer then it can only be a good thing. Men arent exactly missing out on anything, and the existence of this clubhouse isn't negatively impacting them so theres no problem here.
.

That logic didn't seem to apply to golf clubs, societies etc when they were men only though did it? Equality is no longer being equal, a world full of gob****es who read orwell but never got the joke.

johnciall

wakka12 wrote: »

If it makes some women happy and safer then it can only be a good thing. Men arent exactly missing out on anything, and the existence of this clubhouse isn't negatively impacting them so theres no problem here.

I voted no in the poll as I don't think its necessary, but as I said , if it helps even a small number of women and gives them peace of mind (from whatever it is..men?..I don't know) then whats the big deal.

From the linked article

"Should you pay the spot a visit, you'll find live music and DJs"

Sounds to me Like theirs a specific venue of the concert that only women can attend, that sounds like men are missing out on performances they paid for [Cause i'd be amazed if their was a cheaper ticket for people identifying as men]

Rothko

If people really need a "safe space" then they should stay at home.

super_furry

Don't see the harm in it. When four rapes were reported at UK fesitivals last year and three serious assaults at Glastonbury, what harm is there in having a small corner like this?

ScumLord

o1s1n wrote: »

I find it hilarious how it's pretty much come full circle.

'End discrimination! no more segregation of women at workplaces and events... now give us our own area away from you!'

The only difference now is that rather than wear a niqab full body veil they'll use the stip of material left over from the eye slot to make blindfolds for men to wear so they can't see the women.

Christy42

If enough paying customers want it then I can't see the harm. Why does it need to be necessary for them to have it? It is a festival, none of it is necessary! It is by nature a luxury item. It doesn't affect me in the slightest either way.

If it is popular then it will be kept and if not it will be ditched. Personally I have no interest in safe spaces and don't get why people would want them there. However people do many things I don't get and unless I think it would hurt someone I generally like leaving them to it. I am curious as to why someone would be so offended by the existence of the safe space?

andekwarhola

super_furry wrote: »

Don't see the harm in it. When four rapes were reported at UK fesitivals last year and three serious assaults at Glastonbury, what harm is there in having a small corner like this?

Not to downplay sexual assaults, but what use is a safe space (here or in society generally) unless women are airlifted in there, stay there the whole time and are airlifted home.

It's not really addressing the assaults, rather making a largely cosmetic political statement and insinuating that the general body of men are the threat.

andekwarhola

andekwarhola wrote: »

Not to downplay sexual assaults, but what use is a safe space (here or in society generally) unless women are airlifted in there, stay there the whole time and are airlifted home.

It's not really addressing the assaults, rather making a largely cosmetic political statement and insinuating that the general body of men are the threat.

Yea it pretty much assumes that all men are violent and sexual predators. TBH it's nothing more than gender profiling.

Christy42 wrote: »

If enough paying customers want it then I can't see the harm. Why does it need to be necessary for them to have it? It is a festival, none of it is necessary! It is by nature a luxury item. It doesn't affect me in the slightest either way.

If it is popular then it will be kept and if not it will be ditched. Personally I have no interest in safe spaces and don't get why people would want them there. However people do many things I don't get and unless I think it would hurt someone I generally like leaving them to it. I am curious as to why someone would be so offended by the existence of the safe space?

As someone pointed out, what it does sound like is paying customers missing out on what they've paid for because of their gender.

ceadaoin.

Bambi wrote: »

That logic didn't seem to apply to golf clubs, societies etc when they were men only though did it? Equality is no longer being equal, a world full of gob****es who read orwell but never got the joke.

There still are loads of male only golf clubs and societies aren't there?

I don't get why some men are so threatened by female only spaces. Not sure if a music festival is the right place or that it should be called a "safe space" but if people want it what's the big deal?

It's pointless anyway as pointed out because anyone who claims to identify as a woman can gain entry and going by the comments here there will be plenty of men willing to do this just to prove a point.

andekwarhola

Christy42 wrote: »

If enough paying customers want it then I can't see the harm. Why does it need to be necessary for them to have it? It is a festival, none of it is necessary! It is by nature a luxury item. It doesn't affect me in the slightest either way.

If it is popular then it will be kept and if not it will be ditched. Personally I have no interest in safe spaces and don't get why people would want them there. However people do many things I don't get and unless I think it would hurt someone I generally like leaving them to it. I am curious as to why someone would be so offended by the existence of the safe space?

Because it's exclusion based on a dodgy, subjective and discriminatory premise, but justified on grounds of emotive exploitation of abused women.

You could as easily have a golf club say that they want it to be a man-only space.

That said, I agree that this is really only an issue in specific cultural spaces (festivals, universities) where this kind of nonsense is tolerated.

eviltwin

I don't see anything wrong with a safe space in this kind of environment. People can be assholes at festivals and its not a bad idea to have a secure area where someone who feels under threat can go and get help but it should be open to both men and women. Plenty of lads are victims of assualt at these things...where is their safe space?

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There still are loads of male only golf clubs and societies aren't there?

I don't get why some men are so threatened by female only spaces.

It's pointless anyway as pointed out because anyone who claims to identify as a woman can gain entry and going by the comments here there will be plenty of men willing to do this just to prove a point.

You know what bothers me? When people raise a fair objection to sexist practices and gender profiling, we're told that we feel threatened by it.

ScumLord

I wonder is there going to be a bar in the safe space? I've noticed at a lot of home improvement shows that there are specific areas for women now. I wonder if this is just a way to take advantage of women's buying habits by getting them into an enclosed space and bombarding them with products. If women are going in there getting hammered drunk it's not going to be a safe place, just a place to build a sense of false security while making money off them.

Sofiztikated

Being told I can't go somewhere because some people of the same gender/race/sexuality/religion are arseholes? That's a bit, well, ****.

I don't remember asking to be white, male, or straight. I was born that way.

Dyr

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There still are loads of male only golf clubs and societies aren't there?

No there aren't and by and large there should not be. One of the few ones out there was dragged all the way to the supreme court by Equality Ireland because apparently that was a burning right issue

If I wanted a space that was white only should events cater for me? I can guarantee you there would be a demand for it in the states.

raze_them_all_

These idiots are already in a safe space called not the middle east/india, let them go live there and then they'll happily run back to whatever "opressed" nation they come from

lertsnim

Bambi wrote: »

That logic didn't seem to apply to golf clubs, societies etc when they were men only though did it? Equality is no longer being equal, a world full of gob****es who read orwell but never got the joke.

Equality for all but only those in some groups.

ancapailldorcha

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with a safe space in this kind of environment. People can be assholes at festivals and its not a bad idea to have a secure area where someone who feels under threat can go and get help but it should be open to both men and women. Plenty of lads are victims of assualt at these things...where is their safe space?

I get the impression that these things are for preventing dissent as opposed to assaults.

Aurum

Deleted User wrote: »

Yea it pretty much assumes that all men are violent and sexual predators. TBH it's nothing more than gender profiling.

It's not assuming that, it's assuming that that is the way in which a small minority of people who have been in some way seriously victimized by a man might see the world. That's the way that people who suffer trauma usually react. If a person is badly bitten by a dog they often develop a fear of all dogs, despite the fact that the vast majority of dogs are fine, and not a threat in any way. Making fun of this sort of thing is really like shooting fish in a barrel. Do I think the space in question necessary? No. But it's not doing any harm and it might be of some use to a few people who need it. There is definitely some weight to the claim that this school of thought is harmful when it completely shuts down debate in fora that are designed for debate and the exchange of ideas (Universities), but in a minor, hippy-ish, small tent in a field sort of way it's harmless.

Bambi wrote: »

That logic didn't seem to apply to golf clubs, societies etc when they were men only though did it? Equality is no longer being equal, a world full of gob****es who read orwell but never got the joke.

Women usually petitioned for entry to certain clubs and societies where a huge amount of networking occurs, and women were being excluded from this to the detriment of their careers. Do you think that men are really missing out on much in the way of social or career development by being excluded from a small tent in a field in Somerset?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Bambi wrote: »

No there aren't and by and large there should not be. One of the few ones out there was dragged all the way to the supreme court by Equality Ireland because apparently that was a burning right issue

If I wanted a space that was white only should events cater for me? I can guarantee you there would be a demand for it in the states.

I believe private member clubs have the right to admit whoever they want to as members. In Britain at the moment the R&A are attempting to coerce some of the older clubs into making women full members by removing them from the Open Championship rota.

I'd imagine full member male only golf clubs will be a thing of the past in the next decade or so.

HamsterFace

I think it's the language that gets people's back up.

By saying it's a "safe space" that you have to be a woman, or even identify as one to enter, the implication is that it's keeping them safe from men, ergo men are dangerous.

Eff off, I've been assaulted by more crazy women than men.

Two Tone

ceadaoin. wrote: »

There still are loads of male only golf clubs and societies aren't there?

I don't get why some men are so threatened by female only spaces. Not sure if a music festival is the right place or that it should be called a "safe space" but if people want it what's the big deal?

It's pointless anyway as pointed out because anyone who claims to identify as a woman can gain entry and going by the comments here there will be plenty of men willing to do this just to prove a point.

I don't think it's the actual female-only spaces themselves (well not ones that men wouldn't generally be interested in being part of anyway) but the outlooks in relation to them - that there is far less acceptance of male-only spaces, and it goes against equality.

Believe me, I get irritated by whataboutery (in any context) as much as anyone, but I don't think the above is whataboutery and points scoring - it's a valid observation I think. What's with the segregation by people who simultaneously push equality? Makes no sense - why drive a wedge between us if the preference is for mutual respect?

E.g. when I was in university it was a great relaxed place with no heed paid to gender or sexuality or cross dressing or colour or whatever. People just were who they were and got on with things, only a fringe minority were trying to stir up victimhood. And this was only 2006 ffs. I love the internet but it has created monsters - this snowflake stuff on campuses makes me imagine a place where everyone is on the defensive and nobody trusts anyone.

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yea it pretty much assumes that all men are violent and sexual predators. TBH it's nothing more than gender profiling.



As someone pointed out, what it does sound like is paying customers missing out on what they've paid for because of their gender.

Hmm missed the line about performers. If they do have shows in there it is unfair. I would have no issue with an area that was blocked off and nothing special on.

Maireadio

Two Tone wrote: »

This stuff is helping create a chasm between the sexes, despite the demands for respect. I don't remember half as much gender wars and weird politics in gender relations pre social media.

Yes, way more eejits are getting a platform these days unfortunately, whereas before they'd be confined to a soapbox in Hyde Park.

padd b1975

twowheelsonly wrote: »

What happens to members of the Sisterhood if they happen to get a good old fashioned ride off someone of the opposite sex - and pray tell actually enjoy it !!

Are they kicked out of the Sisterhood ? Banned ? Ex-Communicated ? Exorcised ?

They'll most likely cry rape.

kupus

Two Tone wrote: »

This stuff is helping create a chasm between the sexes, despite the demands for respect. I don't remember half as much gender wars and weird politics in gender relations pre social media.

I have maintained for a long time that liberalism wants everybody to be labelled. Its long term goal imo is to break down society into little groups in order that companies can market to them more efficiently.

If I had a tinfoil hat I'd put it on and say that the mega rich companies are actually the paymasters of the modern day liberal message.

Think about who benefits more when people are labelled.

I know for one certain "dirty" industry, that the biggest givers of money to the liberal groups were the major players in that "dirty" industry.

Ah I've a tinfoil hat on and I still can't get the match in hd tonight

prinzeugen

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I believe private member clubs have the right to admit whoever they want to as members. In Britain at the moment the R&A are attempting to coerce some of the older clubs into making women full members by removing them from the Open Championship rota.

I'd imagine full member male only golf clubs will be a thing of the past in the next decade or so.

A lot of clubs have no choice. The club I did my apprenticeship on in Scotland became the first in the UK to have a female club secretary.

The course was falling into the sea and the only way they could get funding for sea defences was equal rights.

Wiseman Drinkwater

I'm always reminded of Viz character, Milli Tant, when I read about stuff like this.

Jimmy Garlic

kupus wrote: »

I have maintained for a long time that liberalism wants everybody to be labelled. Its long term goal imo is to break down society into little groups in order that companies can market to them more efficiently.

If I had a tinfoil hat I'd put it on and say that the mega rich companies are actually the paymasters of the modern day liberal message.

Think about who benefits more when people are labelled.

I know for one certain "dirty" industry, that the biggest givers of money to the liberal groups were the major players in that "dirty" industry.

Ah I've a tinfoil hat on and I still can't get the match in hd tonight

It is all about division. A fragmented society that is pitted against itself is easier to control and manipulate because there is no cohesion.

Jimmy Garlic

Your Face

Hmm, if I was a sex pest I'd know where I'd be sneaking into.

storker

Suas11 wrote: »

If people really need a "safe space" then they should stay at home.

I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one. "If you need a safe space, go home, suck your thumb and cuddle your teddy bear and come back when you've grown up."

storker

andekwarhola wrote: »

It's not really addressing the assaults, rather making a largely cosmetic political statement and insinuating that the general body of men are the threat.

Exactly, which is also offensive, sexist stereotyping. Oh the irony... Of course, those things are OK it's it's men who are on the receiving end.

FortySeven

At some point a couple of dedicated men are going to have to politely push themselves into one of these safe spaces and get the ball rolling on this.

There is no such thing as a space that is safe. The sooner these clowns realise it then the sooner we can all stop hanging our heads in shame at this travesty within our society.

If I had the holidays I'd be tempted to go do it myself. Fed up of this ****e.

Dyr

Your Face wrote: »

Hmm, if I was a sex pest I'd know where I'd be sneaking into.

This is the funny thing, all this carry on is basically creating game reserves for predatory creeps.

Two Tone

Bambi wrote: »

This is the funny thing, all this carry on is basically creating game reserves for predatory creeps.

And helping misogyny utterly flourish. Creating these kinds of divisions by them is hardly gonna stamp out misogyny.

RedemptionZ

Two Tone wrote: »

And helping misogyny utterly flourish. Creating these kinds of divisions by them is hardly gonna stamp out misogyny.

Exactly. I've actually talked about this with a few male friends and many actually feel genuinely isolated by this kind of thinking and behaviour by 'feminists' (I use that term loosely because I know most probably aren't like that, at least I hope not) but all it takes is a powerful minority to have a huge effect on another vulnerable group such as directionless young adult males. It's shocking to some but males can actually be vulnerable too. This kind of thing only helps mysogyny flourish, these guys feel completely isolated from feminists and almost victimised because really they're being discriminated against and made out to be terrible people. It's only natural that envy will follow and as I say it's a perfect environment for mysogyny.

This kind of thing is disgusting imo. Though if this wasn't anonymous I'd be afraid to say it because these 'feminists' would do all they could to destroy my reputation, because they're so extremely progressive and tolerant and don't try to censor other views. This is the world we live in now.

Casshern88

I think its a load of crap, its just done to seem politically correct at this time.
A large scale real world "fishing for likes" so to speak.

And they are doing more harm then good, segregating men and women is only going to add to sexism,misogamy and promoting an idealism of vitcimhood, It promotes an idea of "I'm a woman, therefore i need to be protected from these evil men who are out to get me at every opportunity".

It intensifies and promotes the divide between sexes which leads to opposite sexes feeling ostracized from each other and viewing each other as different species. Which I'd wager is one of the route causes of the issues the are supposedly trying to address with this safe space. It unwittingly propagates the very issues they are supposedly trying to address.

Now I'm sure there are women out there who obviously have been abused and do feel they can not be around men,
But if there anxiety is so severe that they can not even be in the same environment as a man perhaps a gigantic music festival isn't the best place for them to try and confront these issues.

suicide_circus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsZPWsVNTqo

andekwarhola

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what bothers me? When people raise a fair objection to sexist practices and gender profiling, we're told that we feel threatened by it.

It's really no different to calling a woman hormonal or hysterical for raising similar objections.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

It is all about division. A fragmented society that is pitted against itself is easier to control and manipulate because there is no cohesion.

A lot of left wing groups do a very fine job of that on their own, to be honest.

cowboyBuilder

Two Tone wrote: »

Oh for crying out loud - I was expecting to be writing an "Eh... that's a parody news site " post.

This kinda thing is becoming embarrassing now. If certain feminists get annoyed at demonisation, why the heck do they actively perpetuate it so?!

This stuff is helping create a chasm between the sexes, despite the demands for respect. I don't remember half as much gender wars and weird politics in gender relations pre social media.

They aren;t feminists though, they are the "We hate men" movement.

selastich2

It's only right. Unsupervised women shouldn't be allowed roam around a festival like glastonbury.

storker

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

They aren;t feminists though, they are the "We hate men" movement.

Good point. My wife considers herself a feminist, but she'll also say things like, "..it's not always easy for men either...", She believes in equality, not in securing a different form of inequality.

alchemist33

Aurum wrote: »

It's not assuming that, it's assuming that that is the way in which a small minority of people who have been in some way seriously victimized by a man might see the world. That's the way that people who suffer trauma usually react. If a person is badly bitten by a dog they often develop a fear of all dogs, despite the fact that the vast majority of dogs are fine, and not a threat in any way. Making fun of this sort of thing is really like shooting fish in a barrel. Do I think the space in question necessary? No. But it's not doing any harm and it might be of some use to a few people who need it. There is definitely some weight to the claim that this school of thought is harmful when it completely shuts down debate in fora that are designed for debate and the exchange of ideas (Universities), but in a minor, hippy-ish, small tent in a field sort of way it's harmless.

Women usually petitioned for entry to certain clubs and societies where a huge amount of networking occurs, and women were being excluded from this to the detriment of their careers. Do you think that men are really missing out on much in the way of social or career development by being excluded from a small tent in a field in Somerset?

Any therpaist will tell you that avoiding all dogs in this case only reinforces the idea that all dogs are dangerous. The person will never have an opportunity to learn any different and the ideas that they're dangerous will only grow.

This idea that "no men" = "safe" reinfiorces the idea that men are dangerous, both for women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men and those that haven't. It's a regressive, not progressive, move.

Jimmy Garlic

alchemist33 wrote: »

Any therpaist will tell you that avoiding all dogs in this case only reinforces the idea that all dogs are dangerous. The person will never have an opportunity to learn any different and the ideas that they're dangerous will only grow.

This idea that "no men" = "safe" reinfiorces the idea that men are dangerous, both for women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men and those that haven't. It's a regressive, not progressive, move.

The amount of man hating hysteria that third wave feminists have generated doesn't correspond with reality. If no problem exists they will simply imagine one. Tbh I think hardcore feminism is causing massive psychological damage to women, it operates just like a cult. A cult based on irrational hatred of half the human population. The most worrying thing is that this hate based movement is being pandered to by the political establishment and social institutions.