It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
Please see my response to paraphi where I acknowledged my mistake. This is also prioritising seating based on gender - why aren't you equally aghast that such a thing could happen?
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Women only train carriages are fine by me. Can we have men only ones that are free from inane yak and whinging?
a reply to: uncommitted
Well, that wasn't a sexist response was it? Are you seriously suggesting men don't indulge in inane yak and whinging? You must travel on very different trains to me.
I've got no particular issue with women only carriages, although I find it distasteful that women are only safe when with other women. I'd also find it a mite frustrating if the women only carriage was the only one that had any space left on the last train home.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
Please see my response to paraphi where I acknowledged my mistake. This is also prioritising seating based on gender - why aren't you equally aghast that such a thing could happen?
Both are wrong. The only priorities should be for disabled and also women with children.
This particular event just gets everything wrong. A discriminatory system put in place where top priority is awarded to black people who are women, second place goes to black men and then 3rd for everyone else. That is quite simply wrong, on many levels.
originally posted by: CulturalResilience
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: CulturalResilience
Women only train carriages are fine by me. Can we have men only ones that are free from inane yak and whinging?
a reply to: uncommitted
Well, that wasn't a sexist response was it? Are you seriously suggesting men don't indulge in inane yak and whinging? You must travel on very different trains to me.
I've got no particular issue with women only carriages, although I find it distasteful that women are only safe when with other women. I'd also find it a mite frustrating if the women only carriage was the only one that had any space left on the last train home.
Get a sense of humour sweetie.
originally posted by: uncommitted
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
Please see my response to paraphi where I acknowledged my mistake. This is also prioritising seating based on gender - why aren't you equally aghast that such a thing could happen?
Both are wrong. The only priorities should be for disabled and also women with children.
This particular event just gets everything wrong. A discriminatory system put in place where top priority is awarded to black people who are women, second place goes to black men and then 3rd for everyone else. That is quite simply wrong, on many levels.
I could be more outraged. You know why? Yesterday I watched 8 days a week, a documentary about the Beatles' touring years. They refused to play in front of a segregated audience in Jacksonville, North America. There was a shot of the doors to public toilets, presumably at the concert site (which gave in and allowed races to mix, but it was certainly an exception at the time), three doors - male, female, coloured. That was I believe in 1965, I don't know when such segregation stopped, presumably a little later in the decade. In Britain even in the '70's bed and breakfast establishments had the old 'no Irish, no blacks, no dogs' signs in the window, albeit this was flouting the discrimination act. 'White Australia' was only officially stopped as a government policy in Australia in the '70's, and well, we all know about apartheid.
These are all within my lifetime (just about, 1965 was a couple of years too early) and leave me a lot colder as they are more representative of the majority wanting to discriminate. Seeing as I'm not totally aware of what the content of this festival will cover, I'm not too worked up. If the content is primarily around issues that face black women in Africa, or black women in France expressed either through speech or song, then it's not unreasonable that the people running the festival would want to allow black women the best opportunity to attend, and therefore the largest allocation of spaces. Where it becomes unreasonable is to restrict access to others. Having said that, if the 'others' were agitators there to cause trouble, then I find it reasonable.
It's the same deal. If you were offended by what you saw on TV from the 60's/70's then there should be no difference now.
If you can hand on heart say it would ok for white men to have a special area taking up 80% of the facilities in an event today, with white women segregated into a second area and third space for non whites, then you will at least get some credit for consistency, even though you'd still be wrong.
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
It's the same deal. If you were offended by what you saw on TV from the 60's/70's then there should be no difference now.
If you can hand on heart say it would ok for white men to have a special area taking up 80% of the facilities in an event today, with white women segregated into a second area and third space for non whites, then you will at least get some credit for consistency, even though you'd still be wrong.
It's nowhere near the same deal. This is a private event where the organisers could if they wanted tried to prioritise selling tickets only to black women, or white men, or disabled gay Muslim Portuguese of Chinese descent men if they wanted. I say that as an assumption because if any such thing was unlawful in France then this festival wouldn't be taking place. I don't like or agree with such a thing, but I cannot equate that with state sponsored segregation.
I agree with your general point however, and you know I don't always see eye to eye with your views, but I can't put this event into the same bracket as those I mentioned in the post you have responded to. I also think that both the mayor and the national front are hypocrites for calling this racist but ignoring its sexism - if we want to go down that road.
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
Technically a rock concert is a private event as it's by ticket only. The sisterhood was a similar thing at Glastonbury - women only for a feminist section of the site - not so different really is it?
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: UKTruth
Technically a rock concert is a private event as it's by ticket only. The sisterhood was a similar thing at Glastonbury - women only for a feminist section of the site - not so different really is it?
So you would be ok with whites only seating areas at a concert?
originally posted by: CulturalResilience
If, one day, you get invited to a party, you will be its life and soul.
a reply to: uncommitted
originally posted by: paraphi
originally posted by: IHateLibs
How do exclusive events like this in any way promote unity and harmony?
That is the crux of the matter and perhaps the reason why the Mayor has made this challenge.
originally posted by: uncommitted
The mayor doesn't seem to think that the sexist side of it is worth challenging though?