Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Women only venue


budvar

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 412
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

33 minutes ago, Uh-Oh! said:

Nah I appreciate you sisterz need a safe space to run to when youre triggered, after youve no platformed the patriarchy or some such 3rd wave, SJW BS, perhaps the energy produced from the whining can be recycled 

Yet it seems the only one triggered and whining about this is you??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Uh-Oh! said:

Doubt it sweetheart, in 1975 I was only 12, but pretty sure theres an octagenerian actor out there you could accuse, or blame the ones already banged up

You know how you're in a pub and some loud mouth w*nker decides to share his views in the most objectionable way possible. He isn't liked, isn't respected and, because of his behaviour, isn't welcome?

In case it needs spelling out, that's you that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Waapster said:

You know how you're in a pub and some loud mouth w*nker decides to share his views in the most objectionable way possible. He isn't liked, isn't respected and, because of his behaviour, isn't welcome?

In case it needs spelling out, that's you that is.

The sad thing is, because of his obvious issues with his masculinity, he sees this kind of baiting of people on the Internet, and the responses, as some kind of male crusade that he can use to validate himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
18 minutes ago, giantkatestacks said:

It sadly always happens around women's issues on the internet. There must be some sort of siren that goes off somewhere.

For what it's worth, from being sat here for 18 years, it's improved quite a lot over that time.

Keep the faith. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jonodillieono said:

I think it's because quite a lot of people think that fighting sexism with more sexism is a silly idea

Are you not paying attention to what people are saying in this thread? Do you look at Uh-Oh!'s posts and still honestly see no reason that people like him will make women feel uncomfortable bringing up problems they've had with harassment, and why it would therefore be a good idea to have a safe space away from MRA c**ts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, jonodillieono said:

I think it's because quite a lot of people think that fighting sexism with more sexism is a silly idea

No, its because some men think its ok to hijack any discussion about sexism with more sexism - luckily this forum isn't the kind of place for rape threats but in other corners of the web that's exactly what the siren summons.

My daughters are just the age to start going to festivals and if they encounter harassment I like the idea that they can get together with other women to discuss the problem and solutions. And if they say to me, "actually, we'd rather tackle this together as women", more power to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, giantkatestacks said:

It sadly always happens around women's issues on the internet. There must be some sort of siren that goes off somewhere.

I saw a post about this on Facebook this morning too, and predictably it took no time for people to start going on about mens' areas, segregated race areas etc. I wonder if there are people out there more opposed to this than bloody apartheid! 

1 hour ago, jonodillieono said:

I think it's because quite a lot of people think that fighting sexism with more sexism is a silly idea

How do you join the dots from the topic of a women's only area at Glastonbury, to doubting the integrity of allegations by sexual assault victims? It's quite a leap..

What do you think is sexist about this? I could be wrong, but I doubt this is going to be an exercise in man hating and female supremacy, like what the Daily Mail's caricatured idea of what a feminist is. If that's what's going to be happening here, I can understand the opposition. That'd be sexist. Is it the mere exclusion of men (which will be by no means absolute anyway) that you find sexist? If so, do you think single sex schools or women's refuge centres are sexist?

34 minutes ago, Waapster said:

No, its because some men think its ok to hijack any discussion about sexism with more sexism - luckily this forum isn't the kind of place for rape threats but in other corners of the web that's exactly what the siren summons.

My daughters are just the age to start going to festivals and if they encounter harassment I like the idea that they can get together with other women to discuss the problem and solutions. And if they say to me, "actually, we'd rather tackle this together as women", more power to them.

Yeah, there are certain corners you'd expect more extreme versions of the kind of attitudes displayed against this on here. I like the idea that women will have a place to go to discuss these issues too but in an ideal world, the perpetrators of their problems would be included and learn from the debate themselves. But I feel that's a fairly moot point in itself, if people respected women they wouldn't harass them and if they're willing to do that why would they listen anyway? 

 

And I think people are making a much bigger deal of this than it is. On a strictly personal level, it's neither here nor there to me, the place is a needle in a haystack. If it helps anyone in any way, great. If it ruins anyone's weekend cos they're not supposed to go in there.. Christ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If women feel the need for a female only zone, as they would feel safer there and enjoy themselves more, then I am all for it.

 

but I do hang my head in shame that we live in a society where woman feel the need to have their own area so they can enjoy themselves.

 

as someone else said on here earlier, being a man, we do feel safe,  we don't have to deal with woman touching us up. I am not even sure if any of this happens at Glastonbury being a man who doesn;t do this I just thought it didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

If women feel the need for a female only zone, as they would feel safer there and enjoy themselves more, then I am all for it.

 

but I do hang my head in shame that we live in a society where woman feel the need to have their own area so they can enjoy themselves.

 

as someone else said on here earlier, being a man, we do feel safe,  we don't have to deal with woman touching us up. I am not even sure if any of this happens at Glastonbury being a man who doesn;t do this I just thought it didn't happen.

pretty much this word for word

I honestly (naively) thought that Glastonbury would be one of the few places women could come and have a great time without worrying about being sexually assaulted in the crowd

I've never seen it happen and it's never happened to me so I just (wrongly) assumed it wasn't a thing at Glastonbury

I suppose that's the exact reason why this has been created, to kick the conversation off and make it clear that this is an issue even on the happiest place on earth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MadScientist said:

Men demanding that women share every single space with them is the epitome of male privilege, then these men have the gall to say anyone who disagrees with them is sexist. It's laughable. 

This, personally I've got a hunch that the kind or men most aggressively demanding their right to be there will be the kind of men least interested in what's going on and being said there. It's Stan's right to have babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the only people who have complained about a women's only space in this thread are men speaks volumes. It's not about inequality or segregation, it's about empowerment. While 'let's figure this out all together' is a great sentiment, in reality, plenty of women have been told or trained to believe their opinion or feelings are invalid by men, so it's important to create spaces where we can go and be inspired and leave feeling empowered. Also - it's really nice being able to go somewhere you know you won't be groped or hassled or chatted up by someone who won't leave you alone and gets aggressive about it. It's nice to think these things don't happen at Glastonbury, but these things happen everywhere.

Also - just wanted to throw a thank you out to the men in this thread who understand why women need spaces like these.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sloseph said:

pretty much this word for word

I honestly (naively) thought that Glastonbury would be one of the few places women could come and have a great time without worrying about being sexually assaulted in the crowd

I've never seen it happen and it's never happened to me so I just (wrongly) assumed it wasn't a thing at Glastonbury

I suppose that's the exact reason why this has been created, to kick the conversation off and make it clear that this is an issue even on the happiest place on earth

Certainly kicked off the discussion, agree with you and @shuttlep, I've not seen anything at Glastonbury and although I'd expect a much lesser extent I don't doubt for a second that women do face leering, intimidation, harassment, groping or worse at Glastonbury too like anywhere else. How we deal with these things on a wider scale I have no idea, in some aspects I feel like we're going backwards. Was reading about that Stanford swimmer guy yesterday, it's not an uncommon attitude. I don't know where we go from here:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

Certainly kicked off the discussion, agree with you and @shuttlep, I've not seen anything at Glastonbury and although I'd expect a much lesser extent I don't doubt for a second that women do face leering, intimidation, harassment, groping or worse at Glastonbury too like anywhere else. How we deal with these things on a wider scale I have no idea, in some aspects I feel like we're going backwards. Was reading about that Stanford swimmer guy yesterday, it's not an uncommon attitude. I don't know where we go from here:

I guess the newest idea is that we stop constructing 'male' and 'female' against each other as opposites - see trends such as non-gender play, the 'because I'm a girl' advertising campaign, genderless parenting, unisex/unmarked bathrooms etc etc etc.

It would go a long way if male identity was less to do with not being 'female' and female identity not being 'male', and we should be suspicious of anything that tries to suggest the two are defined, biological categories. Challenges like this might create a lot more common ground and shared experience.

That's the cure - alleviating friction between differences that are taken for granted but which, perhaps, don't really or 'naturally' exist.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am certainly going to visit the micro club and see what its all about

Take away this country from the equation and see how women and girls are treated outside here and its appalling. We all need to know and understand how the wider world works as well, and I hope these issues are highlighted within this space

I live a sheltered life, and am very lucky, and cannot imagine a world where as a young teenage girl I couldn't go to school for a week every month as I has no way to keep clean/have sanitary protection and would be ridiculed and seen as unclean my my fellow male schoolmates. And I go to the toilet miles away from anywhere for fear of being attacked as I was going about my business

I'm not sure as an individual what I can personally do, but I darn well want to be aware and want to know what little bit of me can help in a tiny way

As for this country there is are twitter account(s) set up for women to share views/experiences who are assualted at gigs and festivals - its horrifying that these accounts even need to exist - I can;t remember the main one (I'll post it when I do) - there;s @girlsagainst as well if anyone interested

Women earn less in most if not all sporting events, and there are still men that support that  - wasn;t there a newspaper article last year with one of the tennis players supporting the gap in pay. We shouldn;t consider ourselves inferior to anyone, yet everywhere around women we are deemed as lesser mortals for pay, board positions etc... the figures speak for themselves.

Believe me, I'm not great at expressing myself, and its taken me a lot to write all this down and its probably all a jumble, but seriously for those that are kicking off about one small micro venue being dedicated as a womens only space - either take a long hard look at why its been put in place (by no doubt a group of passionate women) - or maybe try to take a wander down, and introduce yourself and say how interested you are in what is going on - hey even say for the next hour you'd like to identy with women and put yourself in a womens shoes and join in - you never know, its Shangri La after all !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RichardWaller said:

 

How do you join the dots from the topic of a women's only area at Glastonbury, to doubting the integrity of allegations by sexual assault victims? It's quite a leap..

Same way you just joined the dots from me saying a women's only area at Glastonbury is sexist leads to me doubting the integrity of sexual assault victims, quite the leap indeed... 
 

What do you think is sexist about this? I could be wrong, but I doubt this is going to be an exercise in man hating and female supremacy, like what the Daily Mail's caricatured idea of what a feminist is. If that's what's going to be happening here, I can understand the opposition. That'd be sexist. Is it the mere exclusion of men (which will be by no means absolute anyway) that you find sexist? If so, do you think single sex schools or women's refuge centres are sexist?

Literally the very definition of sexism, discrimination on the basis of sex. A man is not allowed into a venue because he is a man, therefore he is being discriminated against due to his sex, therefore sexism

Single sex schools are sexist and women's refugee centres are sexist by definition yes. 

 

Edited by jonodillieono
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...