Is a Glastonbury 'safe space venue' really necessary?

Imnotthehulk wrote: »

My knee jerk reaction was to think this was ridiculous, especially with the "safe space venue" label it was given in the title.

Is this Sisterhood area necessary at Glastonbury? No, it's not. But there seems to be a lot that goes on at Glastonbury that isn't completely necessary. But why shouldn't it exist? A place where women can come together, enjoy female artists and discuss their experiences and what not. Considering Glastonbury's (and Shangri-la's) hippy reputation and ethos, then to me it makes a lot of sense that such an area would exist.

It's hypocrisy. These same feminists would be protesting if men tried to have a men only area where we could go and do similar.

FortySeven wrote: »

It's hypocrisy. These same feminists would be protesting if men tried to have a men only area where we could go and do similar.

Yes, in your hypothetical example where men have been oppressed for centuries and treated as second class citizens, where male rights activists tried to set up a small area for men to enjoy music made by only men, attend workshops and dance classes, where men are able to connect and share their experiences and network, then in that case when feminists protest that it would be hypocritical.

Imnotthehulk wrote: »

Yes, in your hypothetical example where men have been oppressed for centuries and treated as second class citizens, where male rights activists tried to set up a small area for men to enjoy music made by only men, attend workshops and dance classes, where men are able to connect and share their experiences and network, then in that case when feminists protest that it would be hypocritical.

Where did I say any of that?

Feminist groups have been campaigning for access to male only clubs for a long time and have largely forced their way in. To now set about opening a female only arts facility under the guise of oppression is the very definition of hypocrisy, but sure, throw some patriarchal guilt from days gone by about and I'll swallow your argument.

Just stand back before I vomit it back all over you though. It is kind of hard to digest.

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

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

Persepoly was only saying not everyone is equipped just to get on with it - she did not defend "special snowflakes" at all. It was a given she meant people who have actually been through horrific experiences, not people who have non existent "problems" and are just hyper sensitive.

I absolutely hate all this encouragement of victimhood; it became a thing in the late 1960s and it was well intentioned (and initially beneficial as it taught people they do not have to suffer in silence and be tough all the time, which I think was needed) however now, like so many initially well intentioned things, it has been taken to its extreme, and has become very damaging to society/individuals. In the 80s and 90s the message was pushed that there is something wrong with you if you are not happy all the time and if your life is not perfect. As a child/teenager at the time, this message was (ironically) very damaging to my self esteem. Children should be made to understand after a certain age that life can be difficult, because it is just... life. It's not personal. And that is ok - but people need to have the ability to cope with this rather than running from it. Thankfully people are starting to question this now though (ironically brought on by the surge in the SJW crowd).

However, there is a happy medium - it should still be ok for people to be told they can get help, that the pain is not their fault (I am talking about things like abuse survival and severe mental illness, not someone e.g. feeling "bodyshamed" because they choose to eat too much junkfood and now cannot find nice clothes to fit them) and for us to have empathy and compassion and be kind towards people... while at the same time not treating people like delicate flowers.

wakka12 wrote: »

What does getting on with life mean? Simply living, as in not killing yourself after some traumatic event? Yeah plenty of people who survived genocides and the like get on with life, but Im sure life isn't all that great or enjoyable for them

Life isn't great or enjoyable for me. I don't pretend a tent is going to sort it.

This isn't just a safe space. It is part of a political movement that where it has been established is being used to stifle debate and freedom of speech. Mostly in America at the moment but starting to put out feelers in Europe.