Is a Glastonbury 'safe space venue' really necessary?

RedemptionZ · 23-06-2016 02:17AM

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 · 23-06-2016 10:47AM

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 · 23-06-2016 11:30AM

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

andekwarhola · 23-06-2016 11:52AM

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 · 23-06-2016 11:53AM

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 · 23-06-2016 02:17PM

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 · 23-06-2016 02:29PM

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

storker · 23-06-2016 04:19PM

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 · 23-06-2016 04:33PM

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 · 23-06-2016 05:29PM

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.

Penny Tration · 23-06-2016 05:53PM

storker wrote: »

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.

That's exactly it.

The "feminists" who come up with this "down with the patriarchy" crap aren't feminists. they're misandrists.

And I truly hate that actual feminism, which is a good thing, is being seen as the sort of bollocks the easily triggered come out with.

Jimmy Garlic · 23-06-2016 05:57PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

And I truly hate that actual feminism, which is a good thing, is being seen as the sort of bollocks the easily triggered come out with.

Maybe that is because the extreme element is hogging the limelight and presenting itself as the face of feminism nowadays.

Penny Tration · 23-06-2016 06:06PM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Maybe that is because the extreme element is hogging the limelight and presenting itself as the face of feminism nowadays.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why.

steddyeddy · 23-06-2016 06:18PM

No men = safe now....

Sexist BS and it should be treated as such.

RDM_83 again · 23-06-2016 08:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No men = safe now....

Sexist BS and it should be treated as such.

I have never been to Glastonbury but I have worked a few Irish festivals and there is definitely predatory guys and (young) women who put themselves into situations where they could be taken advantage of.

It would still be sexist if they walked around the festival and helped out women in distress while ignoring men in similar predicaments but at least it would be helping some people.

I'm a bit torn by this because it would be best if it was gender neutral (very likely unworkable) but if there was an area that was women only where they put out hammocks or pillows and gave the people they meet while wandering the general festival grounds a safe space to get their wits back I'd probably still object but it would be a much more mild theoretical objection because at least some good would come of it.

Aurum · 24-06-2016 12:23AM

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.

True. Exposure therapy will usually be recommended and most people will eventually reach a point where they are comfortable being around dogs again. However, it's a long and difficult process, and can become very mentally tiring, and for some people, going to this sort of festival is as frightening and mentally draining as a dog bite victim walking around in a field with thousands of mastiffs for three days.

No, not all victims will need the space. I'd assume that the large majority would not; people heal and get on with their lives. But for those who do need it, or importantly those who feel they might and are reassured just by knowing that that place is there if required, it can be an invaluable resource, and could mean the difference between them going out and having fun at a festival or not going at all. I'd say a few hundred people out of the 180,000 people who attend the festival actually used it. I really don't know how some people can get so annoyed by the idea of the space existing. It doesn't harm anyone and might help a few.

FortySeven · 24-06-2016 12:43AM

Aurum wrote: »

True. Exposure therapy will usually be recommended and most people will eventually reach a point where they are comfortable being around dogs again. However, it's a long and difficult process, and can become very mentally tiring, and for some people, going to this sort of festival is as frightening and mentally draining as a dog bite victim walking around in a field with thousands of mastiffs for three days.

No, not all victims will need the space. I'd assume that the large majority would not; people heal and get on with their lives. But for those who do need it, or importantly those who feel they might and are reassured just by knowing that that place is there if required, it can be an invaluable resource, and could mean the difference between them going out and having fun at a festival or not going at all. I'd say a few hundred people out of the 180,000 people who attend the festival actually used it. I really don't know how some people can get so annoyed by the idea of the space existing. It doesn't harm anyone and might help a few.

I think every single person in the world has been a victim of something at some time. They get on with life. I've been a victim of plenty. I get on with life. The people who fled war zones got on with life, the survivors of genocides got on with life. People with life changing disabilities get on with life. Children with cancer get one with life.

Women who feel oppressed need safe spaces?

Get on with life , feckin crybabies!

24-06-2016 01:04AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I think every single person in the world has been a victim of something at some time. They get on with life. I've been a victim of plenty. I get on with life. The people who fled war zones got on with life, the survivors of genocides got on with life. People with life changing disabilities get on with life. Children with cancer get one with life.

Women who feel oppressed need safe spaces?

Get on with life , feckin crybabies!

I disagree with the need for a "safe space" at Glastonbury. However many many people cannot and do not simply "get on with life".

Two Tone · 24-06-2016 01:31AM

Aye, some people who have been through a terrible trauma need help getting on with things. I think the message not to wallow in victimhood is a good one however, although I know it is not easy for someone not be overwhelmed by a terrible experience, which can - due to no fault of their own - dominate and define their life. There comes a point however when people owe it to themselves to come to terms with their experience and get busy living (as this would be in their own best interests). Of course this can take many years for a person to succeed in, with a lot of help - and then there are those who may never reach that point, sadly.

Jimmy Garlic · 24-06-2016 01:35AM

Two Tone wrote: »

Aye, some people who have been through a terrible trauma need help getting on with things. I think the message not to wallow in victimhood is a good one however, although I know it is not easy for someone not be overwhelmed by a terrible experience, which can - due to no fault of their own - dominate and define their life. There comes a point however when people owe it to themselves to come to terms with their experience and get busy living (as this would be in their own best interests). Of course this can take many years for a person to succeed in, with a lot of help - and then there are those who may never reach that point, sadly.

I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of safe spacers never went through a terrible trauma.

Two Tone · 24-06-2016 01:37AM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of safe spacers never went through a terrible trauma.

I know but I was referring to people who have, in response to Persepoly's post.

Realt Dearg Sec · 24-06-2016 01:42AM

What gender will the bouncers on the door be?

24-06-2016 02:05AM

Two Tone wrote: »

Aye, some people who have been through a terrible trauma need help getting on with things. I think the message not to wallow in victimhood is a good one however, although I know it is not easy for someone not be overwhelmed by a terrible experience, which can - due to no fault of their own - dominate and define their life. There comes a point however when people owe it to themselves to come to terms with their experience and get busy living (as this would be in their own best interests). Of course this can take many years for a person to succeed in, with a lot of help - and then there are those who may never reach that point, sadly.

Oh yes. I just take issue with the attitude of "you just get on with it". That's a huge ask. Like you say it can take years and a lot of support to come to terms with trauma.

Even then it's impact can remain like a shadow inside colouring your interactions and experiences.

Jimmy Garlic · 24-06-2016 02:17AM

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What gender will the bouncers on the door be?

Gender fluid bouncers that will identify as women for duration the event.

FortySeven · 24-06-2016 07:41AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree with the need for a "safe space" at Glastonbury. However many many people cannot and do not simply "get on with life".

I find those getting the most help take the longest to heal. Simple neccessity helps most people in the world enough to carry on. I'm not saying they are cured as such but they are able to function.

These delicate snowflake types are prevalent around mental health centres. Half the time their 'trauma' is fairly insignificant and they take up every resource imaginable. Yet they seem unable to function.

I'm not saying people don't need help. I'm in sessions with a psychologist at the moment myself due to childhood trauma. What I'm saying is that most people who have been through real trauma do not need this kind of pandering nonsense. Safe spaces are a travesty and should be burned with fire whenever possible.

There is no such thing as a safe space. This should be the basis of any treatment otherwise you end up with this kind of special needs mental health tourism.

24-06-2016 08:17AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I find those getting the most help take the longest to heal. Simple neccessity helps most people in the world enough to carry on. I'm not saying they are cured as such but they are able to function.

These delicate snowflake types are prevalent around mental health centres. Half the time their 'trauma' is fairly insignificant and they take up every resource imaginable. Yet they seem unable to function.

I'm not saying people don't need help. I'm in sessions with a psychologist at the moment myself due to childhood trauma. What I'm saying is that most people who have been through real trauma do not need this kind of pandering nonsense. Safe spaces are a travesty and should be burned with fire whenever possible.

There is no such thing as a safe space. This should be the basis of any treatment otherwise you end up with this kind of special needs mental health tourism.

I do believe that certain individuals who present with mental health issues are stuck in a victim mentality. Nothing anyone suggests is taken on board and excuse after excuse is made.

However you didn't mention that in the post I took issue with. Instead you took a stance where regardless of the person's difficulties they should just keep going and stop being crybabies. My point was that not every individual can do this and not every individual who can't is a "special snowflake".

I realise I'm going a little off topic but I just wanted to comment.

FortySeven · 24-06-2016 08:36AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I do believe that certain individuals who present with mental health issues are stuck in a victim mentality. Nothing anyone suggests is taken on board and excuse after excuse is made.

However you didn't mention that in the post I took issue with. Instead you took a stance where regardless of the person's difficulties they should just keep going and stop being crybabies. My point was that not every individual can do this and not every individual who can't is a "special snowflake".

I realise I'm going a little off topic but I just wanted to comment.

I agree there are grey areas. Safe spaces are the preserve of the special snowflake types though and my post was aimed squarely at the thread topic.

Nobody gets over trauma. We can be taught coping mechanisms but at some point we have to toughen up a bit. These clowns make a mockery of real victims.

24-06-2016 08:42AM

FortySeven wrote: »

I agree there are grey areas. Safe spaces are the preserve of the special snowflake types though and my post was aimed squarely at the thread topic.

Nobody gets over trauma. We can be taught coping mechanisms but at some point we have to toughen up a bit. These clowns make a mockery of real victims.

And at some point people take their own lives.

Wibbs · 24-06-2016 12:33PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I think every single person in the world has been a victim of something at some time. They get on with life. I've been a victim of plenty. I get on with life. The people who fled war zones got on with life, the survivors of genocides got on with life. People with life changing disabilities get on with life. Children with cancer get on with life.

Women who feel oppressed need safe spaces?

Get on with life , feckin crybabies!

Indeed. We've started to view victimhood as an end in of itself. A way to an identity of sorts. A society of unimagined freedoms and choices a century ago has given rise to a horde of the self centred seeking their "real me", which inevitably turns out to be a whinging entitled childish pain in the arse. With a label of course. Ever wonder why anti depressants like SSRI's are as effective as placebo in diagnosed cases of low to mid level depression?

Emotional and mental fragility is something one should strive to overcome, it is not something one should strive to embrace and one should certainly not promote it.

Deleted User wrote: »

And at some point people take their own lives.

And that's sad, but you know something? We should as a society try, but the plain fact is you can't save everybody.

SEPT 23 1989 · 24-06-2016 12:43PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I think every single person in the world has been a victim of something at some time. They get on with life. I've been a victim of plenty. I get on with life. The people who fled war zones got on with life, the survivors of genocides got on with life. People with life changing disabilities get on with life. Children with cancer get one with life.

Women who feel oppressed need safe spaces?

Get on with life , feckin crybabies!

whatever happened to being stoic?

Is a Glastonbury 'safe space venue' really necessary?

Comments