"Safe spaces"

[soup]

How do you feel about the concept of "safe spaces" which is becoming an increasingly popular idea amongst young left-liberals in universities?

Personally, I'm not wholly familiar with the idea and would like to do more reading about it before completely writing it off. Of course on first impression it seems like post-modern neoliberal gunk.

[#FF0000]

I'm kind of curious why that's your first-impression of it. I think most simple definitions of "safe spaces" make them sound pretty reasonable.

I think it depends. In certain contexts, such as for folks dealing with mental-health issues, or people who face violence as a matter of course in their lives, it seems okay. My main problem with it is that very often they breed clique politics and end up very "unsafe" for the people they're meant for.

[The Intransigent Faction]

If they are a spontaneous rejection of bigoted rhetoric within intellectual circles, I would agree with the above. That seems reasonable.

Of course, bigots tend to react with cries of "Censorship!".

The big problem for "safe spaces" is, of course, that in order to be sustained they have to spread and gain influence. Rejection of bigotry, hierarchy, and reactionary ideology and rhetoric cannot be effective if it's just part of some academic or clique mantra.

In liberal capitalist society, it may be seen as perfectly acceptable to "monitor" one's prejudices in a professional or academic environment, for all the wrong reasons...but start suggesting to people that they should reject prejudice in their personal lives and you will be met with complaints that this is overreaching or intrusive (but put more colourfully).

It reminds me of a discussion I had when I was in high school, in which an open racist complained about people being expected to "monitor their thoughts like Victorian-era prudes" (irony!).

In short, the existence of "safe space" implies separate "unsafe space"...The latter, though, is much larger and its influence affects the tone in "safe spaces".

[BIXX]

Make the whole world a dangerous space for those who would control you

[Aslan]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.

[willowtooth]

Everyone likes me and thinks I'm great in my safe space

sXQkXXBqj_U

[Redistribute the Rep]

They've been remarkably unobstrusive in my experience , all the internet fear mongering notwithstanding.

[Rafiq]

There are many problems with them, but there is also the problem of opportunists and reactionaries having their say as political 'equals', i.e. as "we're all on the same page here guys".

My experience with university leftists: They are unwilling to accept the distinct, partisan nature of their ideas. Vague means of self-identifying like "being against oppression" and whatever. A thoroughly DISTINCT political discourse will remove the necessity of safe spaces while at the same time enforcing standards that will disallow scum to have a platform to talk - or even if they have this platform, they will talk only insofar as they are political outcasts and known reactionaries.

Funny how reactionaries and South Park scum will whine about safe spaces, but they don't know that the alternative is "strict" "totalitarian" Communist politics. And we need the latter more than ever. Safe spaces are contingent upon the assumption that what separates a reactionary from a Leftist is not grounded in ideology but in lived experiences vis a vis identity. We need more partisanship, more UNASHAMED Leftist politics that is conscious of its distinct nature in relation to society.

Like fine, let's get rid of safe spaces. Only that when MRA's or racists, anti-feminist scum, among others make themselves known, they get the shit beat out of them. Instead of safe spaces, let's have UNSAFE spaces - spaces that are not safe for reactionaries. For fuck's sake the KPD used to have snipers on tall buildings in Communist neighborhoods during Weimar era Germany. That's what we need - no-go-zones where political standards are enforced by coercion.

Of course, I'm not an idiot - I am not suggesting actual physical coercion but a pressure, i.e. "Get the fuck out of here if you are not with us" kind of mentality.

[#FF0000]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Aren't you in High School, though? What actual experience with campus politics do you have? My own is pretty limited but, uh, fedoras are common among campus activists? Are you sure about that? What do you mean "ruining the little revolutionary spirit the left has"? And where are Marxists and anarchists being thrown out of?

You have this weird habit of making very grand posts on topics you don't seem to know very much about -- as you're trying to say things in a way that you think might impress people.


Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.

Should leftists ignore issues of racism and sexism, then? Or are these secondary, to your mind?

[BIXX]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.

This sounds more like the paranoid rant of a right wing "commie" who likes to call me a fag then when I get tired of it says "wah you're too focussed on identity calm down wah censorship".

Shut up, trash.

[Atsumari]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.
You know, all this talk of diversity, academic feminism, and all these deep conversations about gender makes me go zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, and the level of cringe I experienced from these groups was just as bad as the people mentioned in GMiL, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and got this thought from 4chan/8chan or YouTube.
Much of the discourse regarding oppression found on the campus from my experience did little to question the social order, but it does raise interesting questions that does make you reconsider a lot of your own personal values which is something too many people do not do.

[Armchair Partisan]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.

I don't know, these leftist universities with fedora-wearing radical feminist SJW deathsquads sound like pretty cool places. Over here, we only have kids with Greater Hungary T-shirts, a students' representative body that does nothing while sexual games and kitchen jokes are the norm in freshman camp, and... I guess not much else. (Well, alright, we had our fingerprints compulsorily harvested in our first term for a RFID-based identification card to check our lecture attendance. This RFID system promptly collapsed in my second term, which was years ago, and was never used again. But honestly, I'll sell my organs to the Albanian mafia, or whatever kind of mafia exists around here, if all the fingerprints didn't end up in a government database, first thing in the morning.)

Is there really anything bad with safe spaces? In the worst case, I would say they are ineffective and neutral, and in better cases, they just help. The revolution won't advance any more because LGBT issues are ignored, and I don't see why suppressing bigotry is a bad thing.


For fuck's sake the KPD used to have snipers on tall buildings in Communist neighborhoods during Weimar era Germany.

Hey Rafiq, or someone else, do you have a source for that? That's the most awesome thing I've heard today (to be fair, I just woke up) and I'd like to have a source for it so I can spread it elsewhere.

[RedWorker]

"Safe spaces" are a favourite concept of bourgeois-feminists, and everyone who has bothered to investigate the issue beyond any shallow level knows the association the "safe space" phenomena has with anti-sex, anti-trans, "radfem" attitudes.

For example, some talks purportedly about women's issues are limited to women only. Now, this is no private party -- this is a public social activity which ought to appeal to everyone, not only a sub-set of the population. Now, because the degree to which "safe spaces" have been proven to be infected with anti-trans bullshit, these "safe spaces" now sometimes accept trans women, and perhaps genderqueers, for instance.

Let us take a second to appreciate the ridiculousness of this. So, for example, I could have a beard and go to the first kind and get kicked out, but go to the second kind, as long as I give explanations about my gender identity, even though either way I'm the exact same person.

Now, some may think this fixes the "anti-trans" issue, but it actually does not beyond any shallow level, and especially not because of the deeper problem involved here: the "radfem" bullshit. Because the problem is not merely the rejection of trans people, the problem is the root problem from which this is merely derived, and that is the divisive, bourgeois kind of feminism.

So, according to this idiocy, men would have to be restricted. Why is that? Are men supposedly innately going to behave a certain way? Even if they were: to believe that this is something that needs to be reinforced in the ways that "safe spaces" do rather than fought through the way of example is a thoroughly anti-feminist view. And let's face it: women are prone to sexist bullshit (and I'm talking about the kind of sexism that is involved with the oppression of women), even though we shouldn't even need to look at this detail.

A man known for his involvement in feminist activities would be denied the right to attend, meanwhile the following individual would: the housewife who trained her daughters to grow up, conform to female gender roles in every way, marry a husband, have children and take them to church, wash the dishes every day while doing fake moaning in the sex sessions they have.

Which takes me to the next issue: Feminism has nothing to do with this divisiveness of "men" and "women" that "radfems" present us. That is nothing but the other side of the coin of society's gender views, hell, it is the same side painted in a different way. Like Rafiq would say: it is the yang of society's ying. That is nothing but a narrative that protects the ruling views. Actually, it has everything to do with the abolition of this divisiveness, with recognizing that the male and female gender identities that this society creates are both equally repugnant.

Now, if anyone is to complain about this, we're going to hear from these so-called feminists, how this supposedly goes down to "a man being angry that he isn't allowed at an event". Wrong. Nobody whined about "awww, men are being oppressed!". Their failure to see the deeper issue, the fact that they even notice that it may be a man who is complaining about this, and the fact that they think that THIS is relevant (we're talking about someone merely being a man, not someone having a MRA past), exposes their flawed thinking.

Back to the fucking whining about "men are dressing up like women to infiltrate the women's bathroom and spy on women" that comes from the same types. Even if this was remotely real: Wow, aren't these fucking idiots so immersed in sexist ideology and gender roles that they think it would be any man's dream to actually do this, meanwhile they of course are the "gatekeepers" who must deny this behaviour because men search for sex from many women but women search for one man? These idiots need to fucking go back to rubbing their dicks and clitorises meanwhile being turned on by these sexual gender role fantasies rather than make political statements. We must recognize it: they are the other side of the same coin.

[Zoop]

Safe spaces are intended for minorities to, as should be obvious, feel safe. I'm all in favour of the purpose and the idea of safe spaces. Whether they are actually safe in practice is another matter.

[The Feral Underclass]

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.

What does that mean in a practical sense? In other words, what does de-prioritising identity in favour of revolution look like in practice?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How do you feel about the concept of "safe spaces" which is becoming an increasingly popular idea amongst young left-liberals in universities?
Safe spaces have their uses, especially for members of marginalized social groups.

[Invader Zim]

This sounds more like the paranoid rant of a right wing "commie" who likes to call me a fag then when I get tired of it says "wah you're too focussed on identity calm down wah censorship".

Shut up, trash.

As ever, Bixx responds to a point nobody has made. Don't get me wrong, Redeagle's comment is problematic, but your troll response is meaningless shit stirring. Which is all you ever do.

[Atsumari]

Relax, this is not the Anita thread

[Rafiq]

Hey Rafiq, or someone else, do you have a source for that? That's the most awesome thing I've heard today (to be fair, I just woke up) and I'd like to have a source for it so I can spread it elsewhere.

I don't remember where I read it from, but searching it on google I found this to confirm it:

https://books.google.com/books?id=q3BfUcJIYtQC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=KPD+sniper+germany&source=bl&ots=UE8D47m58q&sig=43ZNHfUa9Ij9x33xhYnTQUvNq8o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjIuavpm6LJAhXIox4KHQLTD_sQ6AEINjAE#v=on epage&q=KPD%20sniper%20germany&f=false

Apparently cops were primary victims.

[Comrade #138672]

Everyone likes me and thinks I'm great in my safe space

sXQkXXBqj_UUnfortunately, the creators of South Park do not seem to understand safe spaces and who they are meant for.

[Comrade #138672]

On another note..

Colleges are becoming a circle jerk of political ideologies these days. SJWs and radical feminists are just the type of shit to expect. And to be honest Leftists are also being affected by this Postmodernist/Neo-Liberal garbage as well. I'm sick and tired of these 20-year-old fedora wearing, Starbucks drinking, self centered morons talking all of their nonsense and ruining the little revolutionary spring the revolutionary left has. And i'm not just talking about Marxists here, Anarchists and market socialists are also being throw out.

Sorry leftists but identity politics shouldn't be your top priority, revolution should be.Ugh. Stereotypes.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Silly southpark stereotypes aside, "Safe Spaces" make sense as a place for marginalized people to reflect on and organize around their personal concerns. Regarding turning an entire university campus into a safe space, there are questions of whether or not this is possible, questions of how "safe" a space it must be, and what would need to be done to actually make it so. However, that is a more specific question than the topic of such spaces in general.

[Ricemilk]

You know how political liberals want you to feel safe and vulnerable around your boss, the police, etc.? It's like that, but for college. A way for liberal profs and admins to get you to open up about your traumas in their offices, LGBT Centers, Women's Centers, etc., so they can exploit it to sell a political line or justify certain budget expenditures, knowing full well they don't have the power to guarantee your safety. IOW a safe space is where you go to find out how little they know or care about your problems, where you're as likely to be retraumatized, force-teamed or what have you as the outside world, but with a veneer of social liberalism that magically keeps everyone safe regardless.

They are not to be regarded as a serious consciousness-raising space or an actual safe environment to discuss your actual or potential victimization. JMHO, of course.

[Ricemilk]

Sorry for the double post; i should have written this all as one post. I'll try to be more mindful in future.


Safe spaces are intended for minorities to, as should be obvious, feel safe. I'm all in favour of the purpose and the idea of safe spaces. Whether they are actually safe in practice is another matter.
I'd be willing to call a truce with it if they called it safer spaces policy. I gather this terminology is occasionally used, but it is clearly nowhere near as normal as 'safer sex' (at least in the NGO world). The illusion of thorough safety is a dangerous thing to just casually imply at isolated, alienated youth.


So, according to this idiocy, men would have to be restricted. Why is that? Are men supposedly innately going to behave a certain way? Even if they were: to believe that this is something that needs to be reinforced in the ways that "safe spaces" do rather than fought through the way of example is a thoroughly anti-feminist view. And let's face it: women are prone to sexist bullshit (and I'm talking about the kind of sexism that is involved with the oppression of women), even though we shouldn't even need to look at this detail.All too true, and a related issue is that "women only" or (a real can of bullshit) "women and trans" spaces are inaccessible to disabled women with (cis, at least) male carers. Carers (and friends informally helping us negotiate an intentionally unsafe world) are not even being punished for being male; disabled women are being excluded for our disabilities. The most cohesive organizational response I've seen to this practice amounts to "Why are you mouthing off at me about it instead of crying to yourself in your corner?", but even if efforts were made to explicitly include women with male carers, the politics are impossible to reconcile; what, are we going to accost everyone who shows up with a man and without an obvious limp, risking adding to a very exhausted and invisibly suffering woman's fatigue? Because if we're not requiring medical documentation, there's no practical difference from saying "women only, but bring your guy friend if he's cool". And if we are, we're excluding people suspicious of, too broke for, or at odds with the medical-industrial complex. Unfortunately, when mushy liberal nonsense runs into hard complex reality, it's more likely to end in maintaining absurd contradictions than meaningful self-criticism and change. An absurd extreme might be the Minnesota feminist group that ran a recent (c. 2014) "women and trans" DIY bike workshop from which they ejected a trans woman for not passing, but less patently absurd indignities happen around gender, transgender status and disability all the time in feminist spaces this way.


Which takes me to the next issue: Feminism has nothing to do with this divisiveness of "men" and "women" that "radfems" present us. That is nothing but the other side of the coin of society's gender views, hell, it is the same side painted in a different way. Like Rafiq would say: it is the yang of society's ying. That is nothing but a narrative that protects the ruling views. Actually, it has everything to do with the abolition of this divisiveness, with recognizing that the male and female gender identities that this society creates are both equally repugnant.To paraphrase a distant friend, you have to feel pretty safe from racialization, class violence etc. to insist the patriarchy is the root of all oppression.

[Comrade #138672]

Silly southpark stereotypes aside, "Safe Spaces" make sense as a place for marginalized people to reflect on and organize around their personal concerns. Regarding turning an entire university campus into a safe space, there are questions of whether or not this is possible, questions of how "safe" a space it must be, and what would need to be done to actually make it so. However, that is a more specific question than the topic of such spaces in general.That would be a different kind of safe space, but sure, why not. I do not see a problem with it, if it means to purge campuses of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

You're giving South park too much credit. Watch it for the laughs not for political commentary. This season has actually been pretty good so far.

[tresha]

Actually, we pay much attention on how south park view safe space. I have just one question. Is safe space is possible in the world that we are living today?

[Citizen]

I like what Rafiq's said… the main problem with "safe spaces" is its inability to address the critique of: "well if the oppressed can have it, why can't I?" -- which is popping up in the recent "White Student Unions" we've seen (look up University of Illinois, and the whole host of facebook pages...) who deliberately mirror the language of activists I guess you'd label "SJWs" -- talking about respect for white culture, the right to represent white interests, literally safe spaces to be "European-Americans" -- I think it's the safe space rhetoric come full circle. Contrast the politics of these youth social justice movements to the politics of the Black Panthers or the Young Patriots.

[Comrade #138672]

I like what Rafiq's said… the main problem with "safe spaces" is its inability to address the critique of: "well if the oppressed can have it, why can't I?"What do you mean by "inability"? It is very simple to address this critique. The question itself already provides the answer: because these people are not being oppressed, so it can only become a reactionary expression of supremacy. It is as simple as that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That would be a different kind of safe space, but sure, why not. I do not see a problem with it, if it means to purge campuses of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Well, if that was all it meant, no one would see any problem with it. The problem is that what it means in practice is purging the campuses of Marxism, opposition to Islamism (for example, a WCPI member speaking on campus can be construed as "unsafe" for Muslims, because obviously Hekmatists are just mean oppressors), cross-dressing, uppity gay men who dare to speak "like black women" and so on.

The resurgent radical liberalism on the universities might wear a nice little "progressive" mask, but behind the mask is the same neurotic conservatism that animated the first academic Maoists with their theories of "white skin privilege" and whatnot.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, if that was all it meant, no one would see any problem with it. The problem is that what it means in practice is purging the campuses of Marxism, opposition to Islamism (for example, a WCPI member speaking on campus can be construed as "unsafe" for Muslims, because obviously Hekmatists are just mean oppressors), cross-dressing, uppity gay men who dare to speak "like black women" and so on.I have not heard about it being used to purge campuses of Marxism. I do not see what that has to do with safe spaces. It is simply being abused, that is all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I have not heard about it being used to purge campuses of Marxism. I do not see what that has to do with safe spaces. It is simply being abused, that is all.

I was talking about the idea of "making the entire campus a safe space". I don't really have much to say about limited safe spaces - I think they're ineffective but if I got upset over everything I think is ineffective I would spend the rest of my life angry and disgruntled. Well, more than I already am. But when the idea is proposed of making the entire campus like that, you run into problems. Such as what happened (http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/09/25/warwick-university-student-union-the-islamists-incite-hatred-not-us/) when M. Namazie of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran tried to speak at Warwick.

[PhoenixAsh]

While safe spaces are an interesting concept they all too often are turned into spaces that resemble a teletubbie- like conformist environment driven by perceptions, judgement and generalization about initial impressions of individuals based on supervisial qualities where any form of upset is frantically avoided.

[Quail]

Everyone likes me and thinks I'm great in my safe space

sXQkXXBqj_U

Don't post this kind of shit outside of chit-chat, please. Any more content-free posts will receive infractions.

I'll come back to this thread properly later, but in short: Safer spaces poicies are good for allowing people in marginalised groups to organise both independently and within larger organisations. They're not a perfect solution, but I'd much rather they existed than didn't.

[Ricemilk]

I like what Rafiq's said… the main problem with "safe spaces" is its inability to address the critique of: "well if the oppressed can have it, why can't I?" -- which is popping up in the recent "White Student Unions" we've seen (look up University of Illinois, and the whole host of facebook pages...) who deliberately mirror the language of activists I guess you'd label "SJWs" -- talking about respect for white culture, the right to represent white interests, literally safe spaces to be "European-Americans" -- I think it's the safe space rhetoric come full circle. Contrast the politics of these youth social justice movements to the politics of the Black Panthers or the Young Patriots.
To be entirely fair, fascists aren't going to stop coopting legitimate leftist ideas and symbols anytime soon either, nor did the "White Pride"/"White Culture" spin start in the last couple of years, nor in student organizations specifically.


cross-dressing, uppity gay men who dare to speak "like black women" and so on.I'm not hostile to your general line of argument, but let's not be cruel in propaganda here; racial and cultural appropriation are a massive and well documented aspect of the white gay subculture you refer to. Much of it can be traced back to white cis cooptation of cultural signifiers in "Paris is Burning" - stolen from black trans women who are all dead now, and not because it was filmed a particularly long time ago by cis standards, nor because black liberationists suggested a connection. That's not OK, certainly not revolutionary, and it amounts to large-scale mental abuse to willfully deny the racial impact. Let us not call for revolution from one side of the mouth while treating subaltern cultural/ethnic groups with cynicism worthy of bourgeois politics.

Being called out for all-too-typically callous white behavior (that's clearly who we're generally talking about here, as NBPOC are much less universally viewed as potential appropriators) doesn't make them the victims of racism; quite the opposite. Essentially your half-truth comes off a bit "...and the worst part is they let the blacks be safe, too", whatever your intent.


The resurgent radical liberalism on the universities might wear a nice little "progressive" mask, but behind the mask is the same neurotic conservatism that animated the first academic Maoists with their theories of "white skin privilege" and whatnot.
So.....given that white privilege is tainted by association with our sectarian opposites....what do you call it when a black person with natural black hair is invited to a job interview, then told there are no openings when they show up and turn out to be black? What do you call the continuing practice of using such easily-debunked stereotypes as POC (mainly black) drug abuse to justify regular and increasingly militaristic raids on their communities while primarily white colleges go relatively unmolested - specifically, what do you call the relative freedom of whites to abuse drugs and move on with our lives? What is it called when your skin saves you from Death Row? Or do you deny these and a host of similar widely-reported travesties as well?

[blake 3:17]

This topic came up at work place meeting a few weeks ago. I work in community centre that has a client base of people living in poverty and are largely excluded from employment. The people promoting a 'safe space' were also the only ones to promote 'zero tolerance'.

Exclude the excluded! Great social justice there...:mad:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

As Quail said, safe spaces are not perfect but it's better that they exist in imperfect form and can be improved, than the alternative which would be to scrap safer spaces and presumably ignore the social and practical needs of marginalised groups and minorities in favour of 'make revolution now!'-style approaches to political organisation.

I'm going to be honest as someone who is on the fringes of activism and say that, in combination with the disparate nature of leftist groups, safe spaces can sometimes breed cliques. I'm thinking of many meetings, and meetings of groups, that I simply have no practical idea of what is happening within those groups. Whilst I think that's fine in the short-term and for individual meetings, I think it can exacerbate the fractious nature of the left in the medium- and longer-term, simply because it does to an extent prevent integration.

I would be interested to hear from others who are generally supportive of 'safe spaces' on what they would like to see - or what they have seen in practice - done to improve safe spaces policies.

[Bea Arthur]

The only truly safe spaces are those without men.

[Ricemilk]

The only truly safe spaces are those without men.But even then, people aren't inherently safe to be around bc female. Plenty of recent/constant case evidence of that, alone.

[Bea Arthur]

But even then, people aren't inherently safe to be around bc female. Plenty of recent/constant case evidence of that, alone.

I did not say that you were guaranteed to be safe around women. I said that you are guaranteed to be unsafe around men.

[#FF0000]

i am so glad to see bea arthurs still around

[Ricemilk]

I did not say that you were guaranteed to be safe around women. I said that you are guaranteed to be unsafe around men.
I believe you think that, but you literally said "truly safe spaces". It's a reasonable way to read "truly safe" this way. Like how NGOs say "safer sex" because it isn't "safe", just reduces the odds of certain often-unpleasant outcomes.

[RedWorker]

The only truly safe spaces are those without men.

Of course, including those perverts who dress like women. Your oppressive position is not appreciated nor accepted, and it would simply be wrong to frame this as a 'feminist' view no matter what you keep telling yourself. Unless you mean some variant of bourgeois (or even reactionary) feminism in which case go on.

Note that your position is wrong and perpetuates women's oppression even if the only excluded group is cis men. (No need to explain why again, given that arguments have been given and not responded to.)

It should not be implied that this position is acceptable in any way. It is reproachable in every sense, and it is by no measure innocent - it is a symptom of something greater.

Though I wouldn't be surprised that some in RevLeft do apologism for your position, given how little they really know about these issues, and the ignorance about how such a position is tied firstly to discrimination of trans and rooted in women's oppression, which it perpetuates and protects, partly by gender-normative attitudes.

Let's wait for these fools to bring up "oh, it's a man complaining that he's oppressed" - let them confirm my caricature of them.

[Quail]

I think there are two issues here which are getting slightly confused:

1) "Safer spaces" policies which lay down a code of conduct (e.g. no racism/homophobia/sexism/etc) and how to deal with such issues if they arise.

2) Spaces where a particular group of marginalised people can go to organise alone, for example a women's caucus in an organisation or a POC-only meeting.

As far as (1) is concerned, I think they're useful to encourage marginalised people to feel safe. If you know that you're not going to be sitting in a room full of manarchists for two hours, suddenly the meeting seems like something you actually want to go to. Some people will cry "censorship" but I don't really see that not being able to express prejudiced views is much of an issue. There can be a problem when someone who isn't up to date with the right terms to use kind of gets jumped on excessively - but I think it's quite easy to tell the difference between someone who is ignorant but wants to learn and someone who has no intention of dealing with their prejudices (e.g. TERFs in feminist meetings).

Regarding (2) I think one of the big advantages of having our own spaces is we don't have to deal with clueless people as much, and we don't have men trying to dominate the conversation all the time. I think it's useful to have caucuses for marginalised groups within larger organisations so that we can combat things like misogyny, homophobia and racism within the organisation as well as making sure we push to combat it as an organisation as a whole. AFed has a "gender oppressed" caucus as opposed to a women's caucus, so it's open to anyone who experiences or has experienced gender based oppression as opposed to just women, and it has most definitely had a beneficial impact on the org as a whole.

[RedWorker]

2) Spaces where a particular group of marginalised people can go to organise alone, for example a women's caucus in an organisation or a POC-only meeting. [...] I think one of the big advantages of having our own spaces is we don't have to deal with clueless people as muchSo how clueless someone is depends on his/her sex and/or race?


we don't have men trying to dominate the conversation all the timeDoes this mean that what men are saying is overrepresented when they are present in such meetings? Why does it become overrepresented? Because their gender role is one of the assertiveness whereas the opposite for women thus making it easy for them to get drowned out? And the way to fix this is by segregating them?

If not overrepresented, then what is the difference between a man and a woman speaking?

And what is a "man"? Someone has a dick, so let's preach a gender-normative narrative, saying that the problem is a collectivity of "men"?

Now, make no mistake. I know very well that men are much more likely to engage in sexist and oppressive behaviour in such meetings, and that they may try to "mansplain" things. But this does not in any way mean that certain positions which aggravate the problem rather than solve it have to be taken.

These positions simply are entirely problematic when held up to analysis such as the one I have been giving in this thread. They bring up serious doubts as to what notions they entail.

[RedWorker]

I did not say that you were guaranteed to be safe around women. I said that you are guaranteed to be unsafe around men.

So every single man in the planet engages in behaviour that is "unsafe" for women, while some women do not. Please prove this assertion.

Or are you full of shit? Oh, that's what I thought.

OMFG! RedWorker is complaining that men are being mistreated by feminists! Yeah, that's obviously what RedWorker is doing! He couldn't have a greater point.

I don't dislike this bullshit because men may be unable to attend some meeting (even though it makes no sense to make a fetish out of not disliking that like some of you do), I dislike it because it reproduces the oppressive system in general, and the oppression of women as part of it.

Why does your cheap BS that tries to substitute thinking by dogma backed by constant arbitrary, evidently nonsensical assertions held up to no standard pass off as 'feminism' in some circles?

By the way: what defines a "man" there? The fact that he has a dick? Or the fact that he says that he identifies as a man, even though he would be the exact same person if he didn't?

Go on socially reproducing gender-normative attitudes.

[Quail]

So how clueless someone is depends on his/her sex and/or race?

No, but there are a much higher proportion of clueless men... It gets tiring explaining the same basic stuff over and over again. There's a time and a place for education, and sometimes we just want to get on with organising.


Does this mean that what men are saying is overrepresented when they are present in such meetings? Why does it become overrepresented? Because their gender role is one of the assertiveness whereas the opposite for women thus making it easy for them to get drowned out? And the way to fix this is by segregating them?

If not overrepresented, then what is the difference between a man and a woman speaking?

Obviously the way to fix it isn't be segregating completely... but having our own groups where we can help each other to overcome our sexist conditioning and become more assertive is beneficial. I don't get why men complain so much about other people having their own spaces. It doesn't even affect you. They're our spaces, you're not involved, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to complain. These groups/caucuses also allow us to talk amongst ourselves and agree on the best way forward to deal with sexism in a group - it allows us to organise and act in a coherent and united way.


And what is a "man"? Someone has a dick, so let's preach a gender-normative narrative, saying that the problem is a collectivity of "men"?
Nobody even said that. But what a lot of men maybe don't realise is, women and other marginalised genders are fighting a battle on two fronts - within our own organisations as well as in wider society. Having entirely mixed meetings just hinders our discussion of how to deal with the sexism within the movement because there are always men who don't understand, don't care and are the fucking loudest in the room. If we organise ourselves outside of the mixed meetings, we can work together to figure out how to get heard.


Now, make no mistake. I know very well that men are much more likely to engage in sexist and oppressive behaviour in such meetings, and that they may try to "mansplain" things. But this does not in any way mean that certain positions which aggravate the problem rather than solve it have to be taken.

These positions simply are entirely problematic when held up to analysis such as the one I have been giving in this thread. They bring up serious doubts as to what notions they entail.
They're not particularly problematic when you think about some of the good they have done - allowing people to come forward about sexual abuse for one thing, and pushing for a less sexist movement in general.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think the issue here is that safe/safer spaces and policies already exist. Most people that support them are oppressed groups (women, minority groups etc.), and most people that complain about them are loud white men. That should tell you everything you need to know about why these spaces and policies are needed.

To be fair, we men get to shout the loudest in most situations - most politicians are men, most executives are men and most leaders/managers in all organisations are men, including in left-wing political groups (in the UK, anyway). Once you get your head around the idea that maybe, just sometimes, others might want to be able to freely discuss issues that:

a) do not directly affect white men, and
b) are often derailed by white men,

then you begin to see that safe spaces in particular are a really useful idea and not something that 'we', the white men, need to worry nor complain about.

[RedWorker]

No, but there are a much higher proportion of clueless men...

Alright, there's also a higher proportion of black people in the USA who do crime in comparison to other 'races'. So does it make sense for them to be tracked more closely by the police?

Note that I stated: "Now, make no mistake. I know very well that men are much more likely to engage in sexist and oppressive behaviour in such meetings, and that they may try to "mansplain" things. But this does not in any way mean that certain positions which aggravate the problem rather than solve it have to be taken."

You haven't refuted this, merely made a claim that is compatible with my view, that is accounted for.


It gets tiring explaining the same basic stuff over and over again. There's a time and a place for education, and sometimes we just want to get on with organising.

So if these are high-level meetings - nay, internal ones - it should be already clear that they are. Inexperienced women would be unlikely to come to a meeting like you describe, just like men.


Obviously the way to fix it isn't be segregating completely...

But nobody was ever segregated completely by any kind of segregation. The point is a segregative approach vs. a non-segregative one. Evidently you choose the segregative one.


but having our own groups where we can help each other to overcome our sexist conditioning

Wait - didn't you just say this isn't the time and place for education? Either way, if it is about overcoming sexist conditioning, surely it makes sense to help men overcome their conditioning.


and become more assertive is beneficial.

Is this a social skills class?


I don't get why men complain so much about other people having their own spaces. It doesn't even affect you. They're our spaces, you're not involved, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to complain. These groups/caucuses also allow us to talk amongst ourselves and agree on the best way forward to deal with sexism in a group - it allows us to organise and act in a coherent and united way.

Did "men" complain about other people having their own spaces in this thread? It makes no sense to frame the issue that way. I wouldn't care about not being allowed in these meetings; my sex/gender is beyond the point. The problem here is something other than that, as I already described above.

Didn't I already predict that someone trying to illegitimately frame the issue in this way in this thread would occur? And now you make yourself my straw-individual?


there are always men who don't understand, don't care and are the fucking loudest in the room

Again, you're using sex/gender for behaviour prediction. Men may be the loudest and blacks do more crime in USA - the latter is scientifically proven. So tell me this: Does it make sense for the police to track them especially, like they already? And if not: Why do the same arguments not apply?


They're not particularly problematic when you think about some of the good they have done - allowing people to come forward about sexual abuse for one thing, and pushing for a less sexist movement in general.

And neo-Nazis donate blood and give food to non-foreigners.

[RedWorker]

I think the issue here is that safe/safer spaces and policies already exist. Most people that support them are oppressed groups (women, minority groups etc.), and most people that complain about them are loud white men. That should tell you everything you need to know about why these spaces and policies are needed.

Yes, everything solved, thank you for the sound analysis based on why something is wrong or right based on the sex/gender of whoever is making a statement. Not only men, but - white! You pile all these labels together because the more someone fits them the more association there is to an oppressive person, to be sure, but then does it not make sense to talk about 'oppressive people/sexists/racists' rather than 'white men'? Don't you see how this plays along with the ruling narrative about gender?

Don't you see the problem of the "radfem" narrative? Have you not considered the criticisms of it? Do you not take these seriously?


Once you get your head around the idea that maybe, just sometimes, others might want to be able to freely discuss issues that [...] do not directly affect white men, and [...] are often derailed by white men,

Isn't this the same logic TERFs use to exclude trans women? In fact, it is the same damn narrative. Even if you include trans women, it's based on the same flawed logic, and the deeper problem stays there, it just has been made to adapt one scenario to attempt to harden it from criticism. But the core is the same.


then you begin to see that safe spaces in particular are a really useful idea and not something that 'we', the white men, need to worry nor complain about.

Of course, because our 'whiteness' is real, just like our 'manliness'. Well, you are a man giving your opinion on this topic, I'm a non-man with a dick giving my opinion on it. So by your thinking, you should shut up and listen to me. Unless you're a queerphobe/transphobe, that is. Then again, I'm the same person no matter my gender identity - which exposes the ridiculousness of your argument.

Just like women giving arguments about why "feminism is bad" and trying to get rep from "intellectual men" doesn't make them right, you doing something similar and trying to get rep from women doesn't make you right. You may get cheers from certain camps of feminism (definitely not the best ones) but others within will disagree.

[RedWorker]

TERFs will complain: "So a man with a beard can go in, say he doesn't feel like a man, and he will be allowed". And rightly so. Taking the flawed root problem but then adding "we include trans women and genderqueers" doesn't solve the root problem. The deeper problem is exclusion based on sex/gender, which in fact is only a symptom of a deeper problem which is the "feminism" based on seeing a divisiveness of men and women.

No amount of posturing will save the "safe spaces" phenomenon from being rightly associated with transphobia. No worship of women will save you from sexist society - in fact, it will bind you.

Don't just take my word. Research the connections of "safe spaces" with transphobia. Research the origins of that phenomenon, the narrative and notions behind it. Discover the associations.

[Guardia Rossa]

So let's relativize everything, women don't really exist, only random people with vaginas exist. That they are opressed because of it doesn't matters because they don't exist, how can you opress an unexisting thing? How can an unexisting thing organize to fight for it's rights! You guys can't be serious.

My 0,2 cents of irony.

[RedWorker]

So let's relativize everything, women don't really exist, only random people with vaginas exist. That they are opressed because of it doesn't matters because they don't exist, how can you opress an unexisting thing? How can an unexisting thing organize to fight for it's rights! You guys can't be serious, let's fight for human rights instead of unexisting categories rights!

Well, I say let's fight against women's oppression. This fight doesn't go through checking if other peoples have dicks or pussies. I like dicks and pussies, playing with them is cute, but what does that have to do with politics?

It's the argumentation of the pro-"safe spaces" camp here that are saying dicks and pussies matter, I'm taking the opposite position.

Of course women really exist. Just like "Caucasians" and "Negroes" really exist. Doesn't change that these are all constructs, human-created classifications.

Neo-Nazis: "These leftists argue that whites are social constructs that don't even exist. Fucking ridiculous."

[Guardia Rossa]

Of course women really exist. Just like "Caucasians" and "Negroes" really exist. Doesn't change that these are all constructs, human-created classifications.

Oh, my pardon, I did miscategorized you as "pure" reactionary. I just jumped in and saw your last posts and decided to give my 0,2 cents.


Neo-Nazis: "These leftists argue that whites are social constructs that don't even exist. Fucking ridiculous."

Edgy. Fucking Edgy.
I guess. I would think you would say this but I'm wrong.

[Ricemilk]

Having entirely mixed meetings just hinders our discussion of how to deal with the sexism within the movement because there are always men who don't understand, don't care and are the fucking loudest in the room.

Arguably one of the greatest barriers to the IWW becoming a relevant mass organization today, rather than an FAI type organization with less political unity. Ranks stuffed with nominally antisexist men who still use male tactics to dominate meetings and internal discourse and rage against people-who-happen-to-not-be-them whenever we do actually have a platform to discuss our issues as such. (Not generally true of every GMB, though.)

ETA:

Just like "Caucasians" and "Negroes" really exist.
Your argument imploded right about here (if not earlier). "Caucasians" don't "really exist", unless you mean the people of the Caucasus region who are not generally white. The other one is just blatantly from the age of overt institutional racism. You sound a bit like a phrenologist here. I'm against the liberal vision of "safe [sic] space" as a possible thing that is at worst harmless to pretend to be implementing, but where you rail against people being allowed to organize outside the direct and immediate gaze of the groups that systematically oppress them, in a hostile climate, you come off as wanting to impose your will on people who are explicitly organizing to avoid specific and systematic forms of domination by well-meaning comrades for one freaking second and compare notes.

[RedWorker]

Your argument imploded right about here (if not earlier). "Caucasians" don't "really exist", unless you mean the people of the Caucasus region who are not generally white.

My point is that "women", like "Caucasians", are both simply constructs. Race is a classification, but so is sex, gender and so on. The point isn't validating race, but rather invalidating sex and gender, in the same way race has already been invalidated.

Either you misunderstood or you're intentionally misrepresenting my point.


but where you rail against people being allowed to organize outside the direct and immediate gaze of the groups that systematically oppress them, in a hostile climate, you come off as wanting to impose your will on people who are explicitly organizing to avoid specific and systematic forms of domination by well-meaning comrades for one freaking second and compare notes.

Actually, all I have done is give an opinion. I haven't prevented anyone from doing anything.

Interestingly, TERFs used the exact same argument to defend transphobic spaces: https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/who-are-the-males-who-sneak-into-michigan-womens-music-festival/

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not hostile to your general line of argument, but let's not be cruel in propaganda here; racial and cultural appropriation are a massive and well documented aspect of the white gay subculture you refer to. Much of it can be traced back to white cis cooptation of cultural signifiers in "Paris is Burning" - stolen from black trans women who are all dead now, and not because it was filmed a particularly long time ago by cis standards, nor because black liberationists suggested a connection.

My understanding is that it dates to the club culture of the eighties. It doesn't matter, either way. "Appropriation" is an aspect of every (sub)cultural group; particularly since it is one of the most important processes by which these groups develop.


That's not OK, certainly not revolutionary, and it amounts to large-scale mental abuse to willfully deny the racial impact.

This is simply tasteless. Calling the adoption of mannerisms associated with another group "mental abuse", let alone "large-scale mental abuse" (!) is one of the most far-fetched claims I've seen on RevLeft, and that's saying something.


Let us not call for revolution from one side of the mouth while treating subaltern cultural/ethnic groups with cynicism worthy of bourgeois politics.

The revolution has nothing to do with cultural or racial purity. Quite the contrary, the socialist society will lead to a global culture, with "appropriation" being ubiquitous.


Being called out for all-too-typically callous white behavior (that's clearly who we're generally talking about here, as NBPOC are much less universally viewed as potential appropriators) doesn't make them the victims of racism; quite the opposite. Essentially your half-truth comes off a bit "...and the worst part is they let the blacks be safe, too", whatever your intent.

"Cultural appropriation" does not endanger black people (or is it "POC", a term that completely erases the special position of black workers in the US, which seems to the country we're talking about because most Americans talk about the US by default). Anyone who thinks it does either believes in magic or is actually outright delusional.


So.....given that white privilege is tainted by association with our sectarian opposites....what do you call it when a black person with natural black hair is invited to a job interview, then told there are no openings when they show up and turn out to be black? What do you call the continuing practice of using such easily-debunked stereotypes as POC (mainly black) drug abuse to justify regular and increasingly militaristic raids on their communities while primarily white colleges go relatively unmolested - specifically, what do you call the relative freedom of whites to abuse drugs and move on with our lives? What is it called when your skin saves you from Death Row? Or do you deny these and a host of similar widely-reported travesties as well?

I call that the reality of racist America (or racist Fortress Europe, if the black people in question are from Mali etc.). But do you notice something missing in your analysis? Something I would say is quite important? Class, your entire analysis makes absolutely no mention of class. This means, first, that you equate a black, or trans member of the bourgeoisie with a black or trans proletarian. But that's ridiculous. It's not as if a bunch of cops are going to come one day and fire a couple of dozen bullets into Obama for no reason. And Caitlyn Jenner isn't going to end up forced into prostitution, harassed by the pigs and murdered.

Second, it leaves the existence of racist oppression completely unexplained. Or, in the case of the original "white skin privilege" theory, it blames white proletarians. This was the point - Maoism, for all of its bluster, is opposed to the proletariat, particularly from the imperialist metropole, all the better to get in bed with the "national bourgeoisie" and the peasantry. It's nonsense, of course. It completely misses that racism is caused by capitalism, and that in particular the vicious racism against what Dick Fraser called the black colour-caste is indispensable for capitalism in the US.

And the quoted paragraph neatly illustrates everything wrong with privilege politics - instead of addressing the root causes of the issue, opprobrium is heaped on people who aren't quite as fucked by capitalism, as if getting kicked in the metaphorical gut once makes one a horrible oppressor of people who get kicked two or three times. So instead of asking for the abolition of what are called victimless crimes the implicit demand is for the truncheon to be applied more "equally".

[Ricemilk]

My understanding is that it dates to the club culture of the eighties. It doesn't matter, either way.It of course does; this club culture did not spring from a vacuum nor is was it or its knock-on effects socially and politically neutral. Nor was it devoid of social hierarchy or the possibility of reproducing oppressions from the larger societies it operated under.


"Appropriation" is an aspect of every (sub)cultural group; particularly since it is one of the most important processes by which these groups develop.Redefining "appropriation" to be a euphemism for the healthiest possible cultural exchange resolves nothing; it only obfuscates. Cultural appropriation is a specific social relationship that has to do with the power dynamics and oppressions of nationalism, imperialism, capitalism and social conservatism. Cultural exchange is a necessity of human development, of course. The most toxic of its forms can and should be analyzed; strawman arguments don't help, but do raise troubling questions about quite what you're defending here.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=RedWorker;2859350]Yes, everything solved, thank you for the sound analysis based on why something is wrong or right based on the sex/gender of whoever is making a statement. Not only men, but - white! You pile all these labels together because the more someone fits them the more association there is to an oppressive person, to be sure, but then does it not make sense to talk about 'oppressive people/sexists/racists' rather than 'white men'? Don't you see how this plays along with the ruling narrative about gender?

But you accept that, in general, it is white men who are excluded from being oppressed, simply because of their (our!) whiteness and maleness? If you do, then it's just labels. I'm not offended to be called a 'white male' or whatever, it's just words.


Don't you see the problem of the "radfem" narrative? Have you not considered the criticisms of it? Do you not take these seriously?

Yes, I have. If you look at the previous page, i've voiced concerns that safe spaces do lead to some of the issues you have raised, but i'd argue that in general this affects mostly outspoken white men. I've never myself seen a problem with the safe spaces policy in action as a white male myself. Further, in terms of making inclusive spaces safer (by agreeing not to use racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist language or ideas) I have not ever witnessed people having trouble abiding by these social norms. The outrage over safe spaces does seem to mostly flare up on the internet, where perhaps there are different social norms.


Isn't this the same logic TERFs use to exclude trans women? In fact, it is the same damn narrative. Even if you include trans women, it's based on the same flawed logic, and the deeper problem stays there, it just has been made to adapt one scenario to attempt to harden it from criticism. But the core is the same.

Only when taken to extremes. Because the logic is that oppressed groups sometimes need a space without the interfering presence of the non-oppressed groups, whereas obviously by excluding trans people you are actively excluding an oppressed group as well. So I fully reject that safe spaces and TERF thinking have a shared logic; it's a little cheeky of you to suggest the link.


Of course, because our 'whiteness' is real, just like our 'manliness'. Well, you are a man giving your opinion on this topic, I'm a non-man with a dick giving my opinion on it. So by your thinking, you should shut up and listen to me. Unless you're a queerphobe/transphobe, that is. Then again, I'm the same person no matter my gender identity - which exposes the ridiculousness of your argument.

But this is the internet, not an 'oppressed-only' safe space, so i'm entitled to an opinion, no? I think there would be an issue if I started making ad hominem attacks (Though, even then, who doesn't do this on the internet?), or started attacking you because of your identity, gender, sexual orientation etc.


Just like women giving arguments about why "feminism is bad" and trying to get rep from "intellectual men" doesn't make them right, you doing something similar and trying to get rep from women doesn't make you right. You may get cheers from certain camps of feminism (definitely not the best ones) but others within will disagree.

If you're viewing this as a popularity contest then that's part of the problem. The issue is building a strong, inclusive, and democratic left, and that can't be done by white men alone. So we all have to look for always at improving the left's historically poor record on intra-organisational social equality. And if others think that's a good position to take, then all the better.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I think there are two issues here which are getting slightly confused:

1) "Safer spaces" policies which lay down a code of conduct (e.g. no racism/homophobia/sexism/etc) and how to deal with such issues if they arise.

As far as (1) is concerned, I think they're useful to encourage marginalised people to feel safe. If you know that you're not going to be sitting in a room full of manarchists for two hours, suddenly the meeting seems like something you actually want to go to. Some people will cry "censorship" but I don't really see that not being able to express prejudiced views is much of an issue. There can be a problem when someone who isn't up to date with the right terms to use kind of gets jumped on excessively - but I think it's quite easy to tell the difference between someone who is ignorant but wants to learn and someone who has no intention of dealing with their prejudices (e.g. TERFs in feminist meetings).

How does the organization decide which views are prejudiced?


2) Spaces where a particular group of marginalised people can go to organise alone, for example a women's caucus in an organisation or a POC-only meeting.

Regarding (2) I think one of the big advantages of having our own spaces is we don't have to deal with clueless people as much, and we don't have men trying to dominate the conversation all the time. I think it's useful to have caucuses for marginalised groups within larger organisations so that we can combat things like misogyny, homophobia and racism within the organisation as well as making sure we push to combat it as an organisation as a whole. AFed has a "gender oppressed" caucus as opposed to a women's caucus, so it's open to anyone who experiences or has experienced gender based oppression as opposed to just women, and it has most definitely had a beneficial impact on the org as a whole.

I don't have a problem with this as long as the caucus is just a place where members of a certain group can discuss issues that they want to raise within a larger body.

Out of curiosity, what criteria need to be met to determine whether or not someone is "gender oppressed" according to AFed?

[soup]

The only truly safe spaces are those without men.
Can you or anyone else elaborate on this? Seems like nonsense to me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It of course does; this club culture did not spring from a vacuum nor is was it or its knock-on effects socially and politically neutral. Nor was it devoid of social hierarchy or the possibility of reproducing oppressions from the larger societies it operated under.

No one said club culture was magically isolated from the rest of society. The point was that the adoption of these mannerisms was an organic process, not the result of some nefarious scheme by the Gay Conspiracy. Oh, and obviously no subculture is isolated from the rest of society and its problems. This also includes the culture of university safe spaces. It also includes the Southern white culture that US blacks "appropriated" many of their speech patterns from.


Redefining "appropriation" to be a euphemism for the healthiest possible cultural exchange resolves nothing; it only obfuscates. Cultural appropriation is a specific social relationship that has to do with the power dynamics and oppressions of nationalism, imperialism, capitalism and social conservatism. Cultural exchange is a necessity of human development, of course. The most toxic of its forms can and should be analyzed; strawman arguments don't help, but do raise troubling questions about quite what you're defending here.

I'm defending the prerogative of people, particularly gay people, to speak however damn they please, even if it doesn't please the intersectional golden youth.

I'm also defending the notion that the only "socialists" who should be concerned with cultural purity are of the "national" and "neo-" kinds.

As for the rest of your paragraph, it's pretty much given that in these discussions, the defenders of the right-wing notion of "cultural appropriation" will trot out the myth of cultural exchange that is magically untainted by the realities of class society. But it doesn't exist. What you call "healthy cultural exchange" and "cultural appropriation" are one and the same. The chief problem is the notion that "cultural appropriation" somehow harms people of the relevant ethnic group. This is plausible only if one accepts the volkish identification of the person with their racial group. Otherwise, it's obviously rubbish; a black person is not harmed in any way by a gay white talking in a way that is seen as stereotypically "black".

The only persons that might be harmed by "cultural appropriation" are "ethnic" artists and other petty businessmen, but as with all "third persons" in the economy, communists can only be glad capitalism is ruining them, so that we won't have to/

[#FF0000]

I think "cultural appropriation" is a term that only muddies the waters. the user Ed Milliband and I were discussing this in another thread about a year ago, and he pointed out that, in most cases, you could replace it with the world "racism" and you'd be just as correct, but without the unnecessary baggage of the term "appropriation".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think "cultural appropriation" is a term that only muddies the waters. the user Ed Milliband and I were discussing this in another thread about a year ago, and he pointed out that, in most cases, you could replace it with the world "racism" and you'd be just as correct, but without the unnecessary baggage of the term "appropriation".

But that's the thing; you can't. The radlibs need a new term because the claim that wearing a bindi or speaking "like" a black woman constitutes racism is so obviously absurd.

[Comrade #138672]

But that's the thing; you can't. The radlibs need a new term because the claim that wearing a bindi or speaking "like" a black woman constitutes racism is so obviously absurd.I think there is a difference between just happening to talk "like a black woman" and purposely trying to imitate them to mock them or something. The latter is undeniably racist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think there is a difference between just happening to talk "like a black woman" and purposely trying to imitate them to mock them or something. The latter is undeniably racist.

Yes, because of the intent. What we're talking about is some "black" mannerisms becoming part of the gay subculture in Britain, through mutual interaction in the club scene back in the eighties (as far as I know). Radlibs are ostensibly offended because only the culturally pure can use black mannerisms; in truth, I suspect the campaign is due to plain old homophobia.

[Lord Testicles]

I think there is a difference between just happening to talk "like a black woman" and purposely trying to imitate them to mock them or something. The latter is undeniably racist.

This isn't funny but is it racist?

rrWcQfcviqo

[Comrade #138672]

This isn't funny but is it racist?

rrWcQfcviqoI don't have sound on this computer, so I don't know. What is he doing?

[Lord Testicles]

I don't have sound on this computer, so I don't know. What is he doing?

Imitating South African accents for the purpose of mocking them.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think "cultural appropriation" is a term that only muddies the waters. the user Ed Milliband and I were discussing this in another thread about a year ago, and he pointed out that, in most cases, you could replace it with the world "racism" and you'd be just as correct, but without the unnecessary baggage of the term "appropriation".

Perhaps ... however there are clear cases of cultural appropriation, where certain cultural notions or styles are taken by a hegemonic elite and restyled, either used for profit or to (intentionally or otherwise) stereotype a marginalized community.


That would be a different kind of safe space, but sure, why not. I do not see a problem with it, if it means to purge campuses of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

What does it mean to purge campuses of oppression? Does it mean banning members of an oppressor community from stating their own bigoted beliefs? I could see that being the case if they were some raging racist, but what if they're merely guilty of some petty microaggression? The fact is that things like sexism and racism are persistent and perhaps even universal discourses that impact everyone, and the struggle against oppression can't be won, or might even be undermined, through such a crude mechanism as a "purge".

[Lord Testicles]

Perhaps ... however there are clear cases of cultural appropriation, where certain cultural notions or styles are taken by a hegemonic elite and restyled, either used for profit or to (intentionally or otherwise) stereotype a marginalized community.


Could you provide an example to clarify?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Could you provide an example to clarify?
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21357/paul-smith-shoes-and-cultural-appropriation/

A lot of hoopla happens when people see one white guy with dreadlocks or his white girlfriend with cornrows. These cases are perhaps not worthy of the offense taken. However, that doesn't mean that hegemonic communities don't still sometimes appropriate from other cultures in a problematic way.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/21357/paul-smith-shoes-and-cultural-appropriation/

So once again we are literally talking about the "native" petite bourgeoisie not getting their "just" money. I mean - communists aren't the Society for the Protection of the Petite Bourgeoisie.

[Comrade #138672]

Perhaps ... however there are clear cases of cultural appropriation, where certain cultural notions or styles are taken by a hegemonic elite and restyled, either used for profit or to (intentionally or otherwise) stereotype a marginalized community.



What does it mean to purge campuses of oppression? Does it mean banning members of an oppressor community from stating their own bigoted beliefs? I could see that being the case if they were some raging racist, but what if they're merely guilty of some petty microaggression? The fact is that things like sexism and racism are persistent and perhaps even universal discourses that impact everyone, and the struggle against oppression can't be won, or might even be undermined, through such a crude mechanism as a "purge".Confront it. Make it part of the education.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So once again we are literally talking about the "native" petite bourgeoisie not getting their "just" money. I mean - communists aren't the Society for the Protection of the Petite Bourgeoisie.

We can take a critical stance of various forms of accumulation without supporting whatever bourgeois institutions lose out to it. I don't see any Communists organizing a boycott to protect local Pakistani sandal merchants.

Also, that's only one example. It wasn't meant to be a rallying cry for a group of merchants, merely to show that the phenomenon of appropriation does occur. Whether or not you see this particular case as problematic or not is another issue.


Confront it. Make it part of the education.

Well that's different than "purging" it.

[Comrade #138672]

Well that's different than "purging" it.Is it? If it is effective, then racism is effectively purged. But it seems that you do not like the word due to its connotations.

[G4b3n]

I work at my university and the idea is a good and necessary one.
Where universities are overwhelmingly populated with the dominant ideologies of capitalism (liberals don't call it that but they recognize it), e.g., white supremacy, patriarchy, etc. It is useful to minority students to have spaces where they feel they can express themselves without repercussions like there are in class rooms, it allows for a better discussion about contemporary issues. For example. recently on campus a Fraternity left a stolen jacket and a rope hanging from a tree during the same week that the University of Missouri were having their protests and we are also a southern University with a history of racism. See we had a discussion in the Women's Center about the issue and if it had taken place in a class room or somewhere else we would not have come to any conclusions and not nearly as many opinions would have been heard.

Also, the amount of reactionary bullshit under the guise of leftism in this thread is gross as fuck, stop pretending you give a shit about smashing capitalism if you don't give a fuck about its affects on non-white males. And I like south park, their cultural critiques are interesting but not always decent. In this instance, it assumes safe spaces are for white leftists and to protect feelings, no the idea is foster discussion not prevent it.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

This isn't funny but is it racist?

rrWcQfcviqo
I assume the place he's doing that is appropriate for that kind of humor, so there's no problem. It's all about time and place really.

[#FF0000]

Imitating South African accents for the purpose of mocking them.

Nah I don't think that's the same -- one is mocking a regional accent, one is an ethnic caricature.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

We can take a critical stance of various forms of accumulation without supporting whatever bourgeois institutions lose out to it. I don't see any Communists organizing a boycott to protect local Pakistani sandal merchants.

I don't see any communists complaining about cultural appropriation, either. I see radical liberals, the usual suspects, doing so, and of course their tails in the student left.

And from what perspective are we supposed to criticise this? It's not even a form of accumulation; these shoes were already commodities. Now a firm from "the West" is making them and selling them to idiots for an inflated price. It doesn't break anyone's leg. It might pick someone's pocket, but as communists we don't care about squabbles of the bourgeoisie about money.


Also, that's only one example. It wasn't meant to be a rallying cry for a group of merchants, merely to show that the phenomenon of appropriation does occur. Whether or not you see this particular case as problematic or not is another issue.

It is the only issue. You can take any group of phenomena and say that's "cultural appropriation". The point is that the things radlibs call "cultural appropriation" are harmless. Earlier in this thread it was suggested "cultural appropriation" makes people feel unsafe! If idiots wearing shoes just like those back home makes you unsafe, you're not thinking rationally.

I'm not about to start advocating cultural purism because someone "stole" a shoe design from the noble savages, and neither should you.

[benko12345678]

I'm kind of curious why that's your first-impression of it. I think most simple definitions of "safe spaces" make them sound pretty reasonable.

I think it depends. In certain contexts, such as for folks dealing with mental-health issues, or people who face violence as a matter of course in their lives, it seems okay. My main problem with it is that very often they breed clique politics and end up very "unsafe" for the people they're meant for.

They're basically circle-jerks where no criticism of you is allowed...That's not how the world works. Sorry, but I think that we as communists should be discussing language policing and ''safe spaces''. This is pre-school level stuff. If someone says something mean to you, just ignore them...

[RedSonRising]

I've read over the comments in this thread and have been wanting to speak on this as part of a much broader issue for some time now. My issue isn't so much that safe spaces exist for minorities and victims of trauma to express their unique concerns without fear of potentially harmful or disruptive outside participants, but that the philosophy surrounding safe spaces have supplanted the type of organizing that contributes to a broad working class movement.

It's no secret that identity politics now reign supreme among leftist activists. Many of these activists who organize safe spaces also tend to subscribe to the philosophy that social change can only be brought about for social groups by members of that group themselves. While minority leadership at the forefront of struggles to gain power are important, there seems no acknowledgement of a necessary class-based movement to ultimately eliminate their oppression. There are acknowledgement that "all struggles are connected", but not that all struggles are rooted in a class system and that our emancipation must be a collective one. Thus, there is no imagining what an alternative society might look like, and organizing efforts are never geared towards reaching that alternative, but are instead focused on a more even distribution of the inequality inherent in the system.

Take the recent University protests at Missouri and elsewhere demanding more black faculty and diversity training and in one case the firing of a resident community director for raising free speech concerns in response to an email warning the students to be culturally sensitive in choosing Halloween costumes. Their grievances are legitimate, and their reforms have merit, but they are focused on making their immediate surroundings more palatable, dignifying their identity, and not on erasing the most violent and racist policies and practices that harm blacks, or confronting the system that perpetuates that harm. They are only college students, sure, but they seem to think black spaces can exist within the current system, and forego the Black Panther marriage of class and race.

Another example is Black Lives Matter protesters confronting Hillary Clinton asking what "in her heart" had changed is another example of foregoing a class-based systemic critique with a call for empty symbolic gestures and futile optimism when engaging bourgeois political leaders. Yet another is people celebrating the advances of women in the military or trans people within the CIA.

Identity politics has basically allowed the left to forget about taking political power and creating a new system, and instead believe that filling capitalist institutions with minorities is the goal.

This may belong in its own thread or in a different one, but when I think of safe spaces, I think of these issues and how they hold back a true working class movement from emerging.

[#FF0000]

They're basically circle-jerks where no criticism of you is allowed...That's not how the world works. Sorry, but I think that we as communists should be discussing language policing and ''safe spaces''. This is pre-school level stuff. If someone says something mean to you, just ignore them...

What is this based on though?

[Luís Henrique]

How do you feel about the concept of "safe spaces" which is becoming an increasingly popular idea amongst young left-liberals in universities?

The safest space in the world is an open street at noon.

The idea of "safe spaces" behind closed doors is extremely dangerous.

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

The only truly safe spaces are those without men.

And this kind of obvious troll, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, is why feminism has a bad name among stupid people.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Ugh, I gotta get this off my chest.

I freaking HATE this so-called 'safe space' phenomenon. I say 'so-called' because these are in no way what Safe Spaces are intended for. Safe Spaces are a tool to aid in the therapy of people who have suffered extreme trauma: Victims of sexual assault, child abuse, PTSD, and so on. The same goes for Trigger Warnings.

The way they are being misused now by these priveleged rich asshole college kids is not only insulting to the people who actually NEED these things, it also brings ridicule and disdain on something that is completely legitimate and sometimes needed.

Don't go using a 'Safe Space' because a professor or speaker at a college is saying something you don't like, get some courage and confront them about it.

(Of course, if you are genuinely being persecuted against for racial, sexual, etc. reasons by both students AND staff, then Safe Spaces are completely appropriate.)

[Aslan]

This sounds more like the paranoid rant of a right wing "commie" who likes to call me a fag then when I get tired of it says "wah you're too focussed on identity calm down wah censorship".

Shut up, trash.

Sorry, those were my first few weeks into RevLeft, I was dumb. It seems like you however got an axe to grind, so I'll just let that go.

[Quail]

Don't go using a 'Safe Space' because a professor or speaker at a college is saying something you don't like, get some courage and confront them about it.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. If, hypothetically, a speaker came to a university campus and students campaigned to no platform them, isn't that confronting the speaker's opinions in itself?

[Karl TheMarxist]

The notion of a "Safe Space" is ambiguous. Safe from what? From ideas, or from people? Safe space implies a certain air of wannabe ruling class entitlement (yes, even from "minorities").
Safe spaces or places do not encourage revolutionary thought or debate, but a comfortable, cruising attitude to their surroundings. Sorry, but this is petty bourgeois entitlement.

[Karl TheMarxist]

Absolutely spot on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If, hypothetically, a speaker came to a university campus and students campaigned to no platform them, isn't that confronting the speaker's opinions in itself?

It depends if that person is genuinely planning to espouse 'hate speech' - i.e. a clear neo-nazi viewpoint or any other form of overt discrimination. If they are, then 'no platform' is a viable strategy to maintain that space as a 'safe space'.

I think that the episode with Peter Tatchell has shown that there is a problem wherein people can abuse the idea of 'no platforming' by labelling someone as a racist/transphobe, as in the case of Tatchell, and use this to avoid confronting that person's opinions. In this second example, the genuine confronting of the speaker's opinions has been replaced by ad hominem attack, which is not fair or democratic in any way.

[#FF0000]

The notion of a "Safe Space" is ambiguous. Safe from what? From ideas, or from people? Safe space implies a certain air of wannabe ruling class entitlement (yes, even from "minorities").
Safe spaces or places do not encourage revolutionary thought or debate, but a comfortable, cruising attitude to their surroundings. Sorry, but this is petty bourgeois entitlement.

Yeah, this is probably the stupidest criticism of safe spaces I've ever seen (and I'm skeptical of safe spaces myself). Taking the definition of a "safe space" at face value, how on this green fucking earth is wanting a place where one can just "be" without having to worry about being made unwelcome or challenged on the basis of their identity a "petty[sic] bourgeois entitlement"?

As far as I can tell, based on what people who establish safe spaces and safer space policies say they set out to do, most of us already have safe spaces -- my regular bar(s), the comic shop, the local venues -- all of which are places I can go and feel comfortable being completely myself without the restraints placed on me in my professional life. I would imagine that a woman, someone who is gay, transgender, non-white, etc. would have somewhat different experiences and wouldn't always feel as comfortable as I would in typical public spaces.

In that sense, safe spaces make sense. They're established to provide what many of us already have.

That isn't what the problem is, though. The problem, as I see it, is how safer spaces actually function. In my experience, it is very easy for abusive individuals to co-opt social justice signalling and use it to foster incredibly unhealthy and abusive social dynamics, and abuse people even in these 'safe spaces'.