Feminists request use of "jazz hands" rather than clapping to avoid triggering "anxiety" [OP UPD

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you've missinterpretted the 'no male zones'.

They're not part of FemSoc meetings they're part of the NUS national conference where the president of the NUS is elected, motions, debates and protests are all organised. All very, very important stuff.

If it was a specific conference it wouldn't be an issue but banning anyone from participation in the national general conference and denying them the rights they paid for while joining the NUS is a step too far and a bad idea that harms all students.

Sexism is sexism no matter where it comes from - denying someone the right to participate fully in democracy, elections and campaigning based purely on what lies between their legs is one of its worst forms.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds like an accurate description of the thread to me.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you've missinterpretted the 'no male zones'.

They're not part of FemSoc meetings they're part of the NUS national conference where the president of the NUS is elected, motions, debates and protests are all organised. All very, very important stuff.

If it was a specific conference it wouldn't be an issue but banning anyone from participation in the national general conference and denying them the rights they paid for while joining the NUS is a step too far and a bad idea that harms all students.

Sexism is sexism no matter where it comes from - denying someone the right to participate fully in democracy, elections and campaigning based purely on what lies between their legs is one of its worst forms.

I don't think I misinterpreted anything at all to be honest. No NUS member was restricted from conference participation according to anything I've seen. I'm not a fan of exclusionary zones myself anymore than I am of the so-called "free speech zones" that were being set up on American campuses for a while ... but you know what?

THAT'S MY OPINION ONLY. These students have the right to conduct their conference the way they see fit. If they choose to have one room or cordoned-off area that is "male free" perhaps as part of a political statement of some sort at what was, again a "WOMEN'S CONFERENCE" I really believe that we are stretching the concept of sexism completely out of shape.

EDIT: Do you have a link to the "no male zones" being set up at the National or Annual conference for this group?

Err this is not just about feminism, my daughter, who is student president of her local college and also an advocate for LGBT rights, was at the LGBT National conference in Sheffield the week before the Women's conference and they also adopted the jazz hands, not just for people with PTSD or whatever, but also to prevent speakers being constantly interrupted by clapping and cheering and to ensure that those with hearing disabilities were not disadvantaged (a hearing aid will go crazy if someone starts whooping next to it)

TBH I'm quite surprised by the attitude on here to this development, because if it had been pointed out that it had been done previously at the LGBT conference, anyone who criticised it, would have been called a bigot...or had it been developed by an ethnic minority group to for the same reasons, then it would be racist to oppose and make fun of it!

Double standards much

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're still misinterpreting it (not meant to be insulting, UK student politics makes little sense and the structure and organisation of it takes a few years to wrap your head around).

The feminist conference is completely separate to the national conference. By all means they should be free to use any policy of their choosing at specialist society based conferences as it's required for them to function but the male free zones are at the national/general conference of every single NUS body, not a 'womens conference' or FemSoc as they're known.

The original motion banning men wasn't introduced or passed by FemSoc, it has absolutely nothing to do with them, it's ther general NUS's fault.

The article wrongly tries to make it appear as if feminists had something to do with the motion because it's extremist right wing nonsense. Sam way the jazz hands part has nothing to do with feminist societies as it was introduced and passed as a general policy for all conferences, not just feminist ones because it's a brilliant idea.

EDIT: The link is in the constitution here around sect 18 www.theyworkforstudents.co.uk...

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I'm replying to myself.

I'm wondering if the "anti male-free zone" correspondents in this thread believe that those of us who are supporting the right of these students at this conference to set up such areas are in favor, in general, of discrimination based on sex.

For example, what if some student group set up a "gay free" zone or a "whites only" zone at a conference?

That's a very good question to ask, actually, and the answer from my perspective would be that if the creation of such zones truly facilitated some kind of "straight support session" or "Caucasians United" political effort or statement, I'd have to support such in the spirit of free speech. That's ME MYSELF MY OPINION only.

Again, however, on the other side of the argument, straight people make up about 90-97% of the population and whites make up about 86% of the UK population. Straight white people are in the overwhelming majority and while discrimination against this group does exist (because humans discriminate) but that is by and large hyperbole -- exaggeration, political grandstanding, etc.

Also, take into account that:

About 20 million out of 112 million women (18.0%) in the United States have been raped during their lifetime.

Only 16% of all rapes were reported to law enforcement.

In 2006 alone, 300,000 college women (5.2%) were raped.

Among college women, about 12% of rapes were reported to law enforcement.

US Department of Justice - Sex Offenders

Statistically speaking at least, some women have a pretty clear case for the existence of a "safe zone" particularly at such Women's rights focused events.

EDIT: Quite right, we should look at UK statistics:

n January 2013, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Home Office released its first ever joint Official Statistics bulletin on sexual violence, entitled An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales.

It reported that:

Approximately 85,000 women are raped on average in England and Wales every year

Over 400,000 women are sexually assaulted each year

1 in 5 women (aged 16 - 59) has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16.

Rape Crisis - England and Wales

a reply to: bastion

No offense taken! I welcome someone who has a good handle on the actual facts of the matter at hand!

I'm confused though ... in the document you linked, I'm just not finding the 'male free zone' reference in the NUS constitution.

Can you list the page number in the document?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You hit the nails on the head, so let's hammer shut this coffin.

Did you see this

www.dailymail.co.uk...

what even was the point , lingerie is meant to be attractive to whoever you wear it for , therefore its not lingerie if its non sexy right ?

she just done it to get attention

I don't get feminists who go to these extremes

a reply to: Gryphon66

How do feminists react to male journalists being tasked to cover the conference ?
with these male free zones if they do truly exist

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Gryphon66

How do feminists react to male journalists being tasked to cover the conference ?
with these male free zones if they do truly exist

I'm not sure how many journalists were covering this event until the rightstream media went nuts about it, but, I'd answer your question ... they'd probably meet with the journalist in the great majority of the conference area that was NOT set up that way.

Just a general impression; seems logical.

originally posted by: sapien82
Did you see this

www.dailymail.co.uk...

what even was the point , lingerie is meant to be attractive to whoever you wear it for , therefore its not lingerie if its non sexy right ?

she just done it to get attention

I don't get feminists who go to these extremes

What are you talking about? The point is that it is underwear. It is supposed to be comfortable and doesn't HAVE to be sexy. Who the heck are you to say that lingerie/underwear HAS to be sexy? Not to mention, it is a product. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

originally posted by: sapien82
Did you see this

www.dailymail.co.uk...

what even was the point , lingerie is meant to be attractive to whoever you wear it for , therefore its not lingerie if its non sexy right ?

she just done it to get attention

I don't get feminists who go to these extremes

I think it's a nice idea for people who don't like lacy, frilly, padded bras. What's the big deal? If you don't like them don't buy them. There's plenty products out there that I don't like, so I don't buy them. Just because a 'feminist' made these I don't get why it's an issue for people.

I will tell you what p*ssed me off, when my daughter needed a very small bra and the only ones I could find (in kids sizes and in kids shops) were padded. For a ten year old. THIS is wrong. But people moan and complain when a woman designs a non-sexualized bra for adults??! Why not moan and complain that there aren't enough of these for children and that would make a bit more sense.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's part of motion 303 amendment. Sorry for not pointing it out, hadn't realised the document is that long winded.

As for how it's being reported, it's quite rightly being absolutely slaughtered in the press - even from ardent feminists. Banning the word 'he' from conferences and banning gay males from liking black females' music has nothing o do with feminism and is wasting precious time when the gender-pay divide in the UK is becoming greater and Lad culture is seen as normal behaviour on campus.

Again this isn't meant as an attack on feminism, more a general attack on how stupid general student politics in the UK is ass all societies have equally stupid rules and regulations.

As for the lingerie thing, the sad fact that article was even written let alone published is proof of the need for feminism in the UK, as are all the perverted photos of celebs in the paper. What a woman wears should be entirely her own choice, not anyone elses. The mail relabeled sports clothing as 'lingerie' is their typical far right nonsense.

a reply to: bastion

All politics is a stupid but apparently necessary evil at this phase of our evolution.

Thank you SO MUCH for your input; I was desperately digging for the facts of the matter.

It's so very refreshing to hear someone address the matter with full understanding.

originally posted by: destination now


TBH I'm quite surprised by the attitude on here to this development, because if it had been pointed out that it had been done previously at the LGBT conference, anyone who criticised it, would have been called a bigot...or had it been developed by an ethnic minority group to for the same reasons, then it would be racist to oppose and make fun of it!

Double standards much

The use of Jazz Hands at an LGBT event is hilarious lol. I say this as the B in LGBT. A bunch of Gay kids running around doing Jazz Hands is the last thing we need lol. That's one stereotype we should challenge! My god. America is in the pits of darkness! I wouldn't consider anyone a bigot for not wanting to jazz hand at a gay event, I'd see them as a kindred soul!

I also think people who enable others to avoid their challenges, should stop acting as if they own compassion. If anything you have a stranglehold on it. There is no compassion in helping people confirm their irregular and out of control thoughts. Coddling isn't always the most compassionate answer to tears. Allowing normalcy to exist is a good thing. Give them a chance to re-integrate. As far as this story goes, I'm really just bothered about Jazz hands. It's not a big deal that they honored her request, but it's going to spread into more jazz hands, and i hate that..

I just think it's funny how people who experienced PTSD anxiety, LGBT issues, handicaps etc.. are the ones saying to face your problems, while the people who simply know someone they care about says no no no you're an asshole troll if you value that approach. No no no, you need to be coddled. Come here sit on mamas/daddys lap.

Sorry, I'm not an asshole for feeling uncomfortable in that state of mind. I've experienced some #ty psychological states, and what the coddling produced was the worst. Treat people right, if they become overwhelmed accommodate them, but let's chill with the asshole troll talk, cause your approach is the wrong one IMO. You can kick and scream all you like, but I'm not going to back down from the superior approach just because someone called me names. I feel no pressure to conform to your opinion, because it's wrong.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No problem. Just realised I've made a major mistake though.

The article wrongly states the 'no male' zones are at the feminist conference. This is a complete outright lie. There are no bans on men attending FemSoc, in fact males are welcomed to the table.

The actual ban is actually at the women's only women's conference which is perfectly rational as it's a women's only event on women's matters and unlike feminist conferences men genuinely would be in the way. I.e having men vote on niqab issues would only cause further emancipation of women.

Events like this make me think that sites like Return of Kings just might really be onto something.

Also I wanna just say I'm here if you need to talk.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Is our "intellectual infrastructure" partially crumbling in the West? Is the fabric of our communities crumbling? Is it societal decay and decadence masked by technological progress?

I don't know... but it's something alright. Western civilization itself is sick and dying.

a reply to: KAOStheory

I think there's an (perhaps subconscious)assumption that men have been so privileged that these types of things will only level the playing field. They're impervious and if there's anything wrong they should take it and shut up. Or they aren't thinking about it at all, only trying to look out for their special group and their rights. Nobody seems to be concerned, nobody is highlighting these things. But society should be concerned if one half of society is institutionally stifled, disenfranchised and increasingly dysfunctional. If feminists think the suffering of men is to their gain they have another thing coming. We need true equality and balance, not groups vying for privilege. Which is the current order, ironic as it is.

Anyway, the facts are already in. Boys have taken a backseat in school, and I don't think for a second that is because boys are inherently inferior, rather it seems to be because typically boyish behaviour has step by step been criminalized, and even been denied to have any basis in biology. Education in itself should really be revolutionised too, at our current trajectory we won't be able to compete with Asia at all in the future.