Women only venue

[snorton82]

I'm sure this will please the likes of Ellie Goulding and Emma Watson no end

[CaledonianGonzo]

4 minutes ago, willsnewman said:

I still feel like it could be a shangri-la spin on the way they're describing it. And people are gobbling it up? I don't know. It's an awkward one and it is a serious issue, but now I believe it is a just a SL twist on the issue. It's working as far as discussion is going, but if it was for real I wouldn't agree with the venue.

If it is all an hilarious wind up and they do let men in after the all the point would be....what, exactly?  Cheesing off people who might find it useful?

In a year where they're supposedly aiming their satirez at the tabloid media they effectively  go and turn themselves into the Daily Mail?

 

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

I'm sure this will please the likes of Ellie Goulding and Emma Watson no end

And annoy divvies.

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

If it is all an hilarious wind up and they do let men in after the all the point would be....what, exactly?  Cheesing off people who might find it useful?

In a year where they're supposedly aiming their satirez at the tabloid media they effectively  go and turn themselves into the Daily Mail?

 

Who's turning themselves into the Daily Mail?

[scaryclaireyfairy]

3 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

I'm sure this will please the likes of Ellie Goulding and Emma Watson no end

What?

[CaledonianGonzo]

Just now, stuartbert two hats said:

Who's turning themselves into the Daily Mail?

No one.  Other than some of the people on here.

 

 

[Heartbreaker]

2 minutes ago, SpiralGirl said:

Doesn't the Shangri-La announcement also say don't believe all you see, hear or read? 

Indeed it does. If they end up letting anyone in, and it was all just a fantastic piece of the Shangri-La story. Then I shall doff my cap to the person who thought this up.

[Bradders]

As far as the excluding men and inequality complaint goes; really!? It's one tiny little tent at the festival, we're not missing out on much (although it does sound great). It's more important to highlight the issue. I know a lot of girls feel excluded at some gigs so Glastonbury seems the perfect place for a place like this. My girlfriend's very excited about this and I'll just go somewhere else for a bit.

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, Heartbreaker said:

Indeed it does. If they end up letting anyone in, and it was all just a fantastic piece of the Shangri-La story. Then I shall doff my cap to the person who thought this up.

Classic bantz for the lads.

[stuartbert two hats]

I'm sure some of you have seen this before, but I really like it.  It explains why we should be cool about having women only spaces, other forms of positive discrimination and even redistribution of wealth.  It's all about trying to re-level an unlevel playing field.  Some of the attempts may be crude, some of them may be unfair, but I support the principle.

Edited June 3, 2016 by stuartbert two hats
distribution -> redistribution

[willsnewman]

2 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

If it is all an hilarious wind up and they do let men in after the all the point would be....what, exactly?  Cheesing off people who might find it useful?

In a year where they're supposedly aiming their satirez at the tabloid media they effectively  go and turn themselves into the Daily Mail?

 

No I think they won't let in men. I don't know how to explain what I think it is. I think it is SL satire demonstrating segregation but from the side of the 'less equal' gender (note, I fully support equality, and agree that society is not currently equal). But I believe everyone is seeing it as a positive thing, which I think is part of the satire. Segregation is not a positive thing. And I also think it is satirising(?) a problem with some forms of 'feminism' which seeks to exclude men as their form of campaigning for equality. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm not very good at describing what I think... 

[BagpussSeesAllThings]

Hell always freaks me out anyway so I doubt I'll spend much time there other than the Hot Chip show on the Friday!

In general I don't really agree with the concept and I think there are better ways to educate (if that's the point) but I think it's a bit of fun that's been pulled out of context.

[dentalplan]

Just now, willsnewman said:

No I think they won't let in men. I don't know how to explain what I think it is. I think it is SL satire demonstrating segregation but from the side of the 'less equal' gender (note, I fully support equality, and agree that society is not currently equal). But I believe everyone is seeing it as a positive thing, which I think is part of the satire. Segregation is not a positive thing. And I also think it is satirising(?) a problem with some forms of 'feminism' which seeks to exclude men as their form of campaigning for equality. Perhaps I'm wrong, and I'm not very good at describing what I think... 

Nah it's not. If it was, I think their Twitter would be kinda cruel in retweeting things about women's spaces and such.

[Tigerdragon]

5 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm sure some of you have seen this before, but I really like it.  It explains why we should be cool about having women only spaces, other forms of positive discrimination and even distribution of wealth.  It's all about trying to re-level an unlevel playing field.  Some of the attempts may be crude, some of them may be unfair, but I support the principle.

I get the sentiment of the picture, but I never understood why they didn't just knock down that flimsy looking wooden fence together? Isn't equality about removing the structural barriers some people systematically face? That'd be a nice metaphor I think.

[RichardWaller]

My only grumble with this idea, and it's a minor one, is that I think it may be a bit of a preach to the converted. But saying that, so may the Leftfield... Course that's not to say Glastonbury is a sexism free zone. I dunno, I just think that in places in need of education on these things, Glastonbury is going to be pretty low on the list. But there'll always be exceptions.

Anyway, sexism is a problem, no doubt about it. Glastonbury does have its history as a place of activism, where people confront inequality and injustice, so in that sense I suppose it's more of an extension than anything. I wonder if things like this might do more harm than good though, I can already imagine a Richard Littlejohn style article on this, painting men as victims of sexism. They might not even want to be there but they'll demand the right to be.

Still, at least it's got people talking and thinking.

Edited June 3, 2016 by RichardWaller

[willsnewman]

4 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

Nah it's not. If it was, I think their Twitter would be kinda cruel in retweeting things about women's spaces and such.

Oh ok, I was just looking at the Shangri-La twitter page. But yes you're correct that would be wrong...

In which case if it isn't satire, I think they've gone about this the wrong way and I'm surprised. But like I said I'm open to discussion, which this has certainly produced.

Edited June 3, 2016 by willsnewman

[willsnewman]

7 minutes ago, RichardWaller said:

My only grumble with this idea, and it's a minor one, is that I think it may be a bit of a preach to the converted. But saying that, so may the Leftfield... Anyway, sexism is a problem, no doubt about it. Glastonbury does have its history as a place of activism, where people confront inequality and injustice, so in that sense I suppose it's more of an extension than anything. I wonder if things like this might do more harm than good though, I can already imagine a Richard Littlejohn style article on this, painting men as victims of sexism. They might not even want to be there but they'll demand the right to be.

See, I don't think there should have ever been an occasion arise at Glastonbury where anyone needs to demand a right to be somewhere. I know sexism towards men is minimal in comparison to women, but this is certainly a case of it if it is indeed not satire, and I don't believe that is the right way to campaign for equality. A 'see how you like it' attitude.

Edited June 3, 2016 by willsnewman

[willsnewman]

29 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I'm sure some of you have seen this before, but I really like it.  It explains why we should be cool about having women only spaces, other forms of positive discrimination and even redistribution of wealth.  It's all about trying to re-level an unlevel playing field.  Some of the attempts may be crude, some of them may be unfair, but I support the principle.

Is it possible however that what Shangri La is demonstrating is not giving a box to the shorter person, but digging a hole for the taller person so that they are on the same level.

Edit: Giving a box to the shorter person would be providing a venue dedicated to discussion about equality (acknowledging it as a serious issue) but open to everyone.

Edited June 3, 2016 by willsnewman

[RichardWaller]

3 minutes ago, willsnewman said:

See, I don't think there should have ever been an occasion arise at Glastonbury where anyone needs to demand a right to be somewhere. I know sexism towards men is minimal in comparison to women, but this is certainly a case of it if it is indeed not satire, and I don't believe that is the right way to campaign for equality. A 'see how you like it' attitude.

Can't see it being that cut and dry to be honest. Like @DeanoL said on the front page, just say you identify as a woman. I'd be surprised if they objected that, maybe you don't identify as a woman but who's anyone to tell you you don't?

[Tigerdragon]

Some posts here border on the 'reverse-sexism argument'. No-one disagrees that, in some isolated micro-level incidents, men might experience sexism. But, as a macro-rule, men have the power to secure their interests, rights, safety, and privileges in a way no other gender group do. It is important to help those who need it, before those who can help themselves.

Like how when a boat sinks, its important to rescue drowning people before addressing those moaning that they now have slightly damp shoes.

As for giving men a taste of their (our) own medicine, thats not useless either. Sometimes you have to experience something before you can address it. How can you discuss/fully care about/help excluded people(s) if you've never experienced exclusion? Much how tories trying to help those in poverty tends to be badly thought out and leave a rancid taste in one's mouth. 
 

[Tigerdragon]

41 minutes ago, snorton82 said:

I'm sure this will please the likes of Ellie Goulding and Emma Watson no end

So? Do you often base what you like and what you do on what Ellie Goulding and Emma Watson wouldn't like?

[Woffy]

In a week where Royal Troon has had to have an (all male) vote to admit women as members, a women only tent at Glastonbury is small beans. 

[jumbomcnutt]

2 hours ago, budvar said:

According to the NME there will be a women only venue in Shangri La this year:

http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/93950?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=glastonburywomen

Given I'm a man my opinion on this really isn't relevant but interested to hear what others think

Probably showing the footy in there too.

[jonodillieono]

46 minutes ago, willsnewman said:

Is it possible however that what Shangri La is demonstrating is not giving a box to the shorter person, but digging a hole for the taller person so that they are on the same level.

Edit: Giving a box to the shorter person would be providing a venue dedicated to discussion about equality (acknowledging it as a serious issue) but open to everyone.

Id say it's more chopping the legs off the taller person and the feet off the middle person so that nobody can see

[jonodillieono]

45 minutes ago, Tigerdragon said:

Some posts here border on the 'reverse-sexism argument'. No-one disagrees that, in some isolated micro-level incidents, men might experience sexism. But, as a macro-rule, men have the power to secure their interests, rights, safety, and privileges in a way no other gender group do. It is important to help those who need it, before those who can help themselves.

Like how when a boat sinks, its important to rescue drowning people before addressing those moaning that they now have slightly damp shoes.

As for giving men a taste of their (our) own medicine, thats not useless either. Sometimes you have to experience something before you can address it. How can you discuss/fully care about/help excluded people(s) if you've never experienced exclusion? Much how tories trying to help those in poverty tends to be badly thought out and leave a rancid taste in one's mouth. 
 

Reverse-sexism doesn't exist it's just sexism

You mean how when a boat sinks women (and children) are the first in the lifeboats?