Is a Glastonbury 'safe space venue' really necessary?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

[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.

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 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.

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.