Australia’s Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women’s only space.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/oHT6U
Australia’s Mona asked a court to reverse its ruling that allowed men inside a women’s only space.
Archived version: https://archive.ph/oHT6U
I think the intent behind a safe space is that it is separated from potential triggers. So people who were abused by a man may wish to be in a space with no men, since the sight of men might bring up past trauma. Same for people abused by women. Putting men and women together, even though they have all experienced abuse, may still be exposing them all to the same triggers they want to avoid.
Of course all these people have the same right to having safe spaces, but those spaces don’t have to be in the same place.
But of course none of that really makes sense in a museum specialising on controversy
So we need a space for women abused by men, women abused by women, men abused by men, men abused by women, and people abused by mascots.
How about if people who want to create safe spaces just create the safe spaces they want to create, and we try to respect their need instead of making sure they’ve covered every corner case an uninvolved third party can imagine?
I’m pretty sure that if there is a large enough community of people abused by mascots in a given locality, someone will create a safe space for those people. The presence of a “safe space for female rape survivors” doesn’t preclude someone who wants to from creating that, nor a safe space for male rape survivors.
The problem I see is bigots using that as cover for their bigotry. “Sorry, this golf club is a safe space for people triggered by black people and women.”
The government would have to decide that the discrimination we like is ok, but the discrimination we don’t like isn’t. Which has incredible potential for abuse when the wrong people end up in charge.
Here’s my problem with that (reasonable) viewpoint.
I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately. You can phrase it as “the discrimination we like vs the discrimination we don’t like” but I think that’s overly reductive.
No one using this example (and there are a few) finds it hard to see the difference between a safe space for women and a club for bigots. If we can perceive that distinction, we can describe it with words, and we can legislate accordingly.
Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.
I mean give it a go. Yeah, it’s easy to distinguish in a common sense sort of way. It’s very much not an easy problem to solve in coherent legal wording, or it would’ve been already.
I agree that discrimination against vulnerable populations should absolutely not be ok, and women especially should have safe spaces to escape abusers even if it’s difficult to make a legal argument.
Anyway, that’s going to have to suffice for my argument, my daughter needs my attention more than lemmy😅
All good, thanks for the reply, we agree more than we don’t!
Better add non-binary into the mix, too.
Maybe that makes sense for a party in someone’s home or whatever, but not in a museum.
No one goes to a museum to feel safe, because it is you know, a museum and not a safe house or something. If someone is so incredibly scared of the other half of humanity so they can’t go to a museum where they are allowed, they probably should go to therapy or stay at home instead of a museum.
I was just about to to write something exactly like this.
Being afraid of 49% of the planet so hard that going outside is impossible, what the fuck is going to a museum going to be like? Do they escort you from your car into the side entrance? And then what? Enjoy a museum or is it group therapy in there? To what end.
Being catatonically afraid is not the world’s problem (ie fighting a legal case).
Yeah I agree, I wasn’t trying to support having women only museums, just making a point why mixing men and women safe spaces together doesn’t make much sense.
Yeah, I understand the intent. And it is a good intent, one of those “seemingly good ideas” I mentioned. There are still HUGE problems with it, particularly depending on how broad and public the group is.
I can agree to a need for a safe place in order to get past trauma. The issue is one of equal access and quality, I think. Specifically for something like sexual assault, I can easily imagine there being a lot of instances where there are only women-only groups available. In a way, situations like this, where we need a safe space for one group, can deprive the other group of safe spaces.
If we want to keep segregated spaces for things like this, fine, but there has to be some equality of access. If not with your specific group, then having a network with other groups, for instance. This is a huge, complicated topic with a lot of possibilities and nuance, and is a bit past the point of this post. The purpose of my previous comment was to refute the obvious strawman of the last commenter, equating an art installation to safe spaces for sexual assault survivors.
Why? Let’s pretend I’ve got fuck you money, and I’ve had some close personal experiences with family members or friends suffering through sexual abuse or rape. All those friends are women.
If I create a shelter for women who need to be safe from sexual abuse and predators and away from all likely triggers while they recover (or, say, a crazy museum for the same purpose) - what exactly obligates me to any of that? I’m taking my money and building a women’s shelter, because that’s the group I’ve got a personal connection with, and the group I want to help. Elon Musk can build a men’s shelter if he wants.
I’m not asking about laws, I’m asking about ethics. Why am I obligated to help EVERY group because I’ve chosen to help ONE group?
No pretend you have fuck you money and you are racist. Is it still OK to make a shelter for white people?
Its a complicated issue. In this case, the point of the piece is to highlight segregation. Even with laws protecting women, they are more likely to sufferviomebce or exclusion.
So we complain about people trying to shelter women under the current “complicated situation” because we’re afraid that a racist might take advantage if we allow it to happen? How about we let folks trying to make things better for women do their thing, and we cross that road when we come to it with the racists?
I think there is a fairly reasonable distinction that could be made (but which I’m far too weary after this rough day to try wordsmithing) between those two scenarios such that it should not be difficult to write the related laws in a way that handles both circumstances appropriately.
Otherwise, we’re deciding not to let people who need them have safe spaces because assholes might take advantage of our permissiveness. I’m not OK with that.
I also think there are already MANY defacto white-only places even today.