Morally I'm with the protesters. You can't beat racism unless the people being discriminated rebel en masse. Rosa Parkes didn't get to sit where she likes by moaning on the local message forum.
Funny that the people who support them are usually the first ones to complain about racism being an over used term though. At least now they know what it feels like. Fortunately this is an isolated event when compared with the racism that minorities have had to face since the fifties and they didn't even have an establishment stalwart like the Spectator on their side.
And this is the reaction when two oppressive whities dared step foot into the Union 'safe space'...
Extreme liberal leftism and political correctness has reached perhaps reached it's natural, deranged conclusion. I think it's fair to describe this person as deranged, no?
And this is the reaction when two oppressive whities dared step foot into the Union 'safe space'...
Extreme liberal leftism and political correctness has reached perhaps reached it's natural, deranged conclusion. I think it's fair to describe this person as deranged, no?
I cannot wait to see these idiots when finally in the workplace, I would love to be a fly on the wall when they find out they cannot behave in such a way .
Another example of far left "listen and believe" thinking infiltrating universities alongside neo-puritanism and authoritarianism. Keep reminding yourself, these people are our future!
There is nothing liberal, progressive or egalitarian about such measures including safe spaces and echo chambers to prevent uncomfortable views, scientific consensus and rationality from being heard by ideologues or voiced by their ideological opponents.
Except they've banned all men and also any women of the "wrong" colour.
And, beyond this case you'll find such events also ban anyone, man or woman, who thinks the wrong way (case in point, the Honey Badger Brigade at the Calgary Expo or Christina Hoff Sommers recent talk at Oberlin College).
Expecting loads of defending coming soon but there's no excuse for this whatsoever.
Why does it need excusing? Organise your own meeting. There are plenty of men's groups around that, oddly enough, don't allow women. A white person's group would need some defending, since white people dominate almost every meeting of any kind, but if you were particularly keen to discuss racism, there is no reason why you should not actively ask for white peoples' input.
I'm wondering what the "safe place" is protecting them from?
What is the implied threat? Can they spell it out?
From being outnumbered, in every other meeting. It is quite clear. As in every other British university, union meetings are dominated by white students (as most of us are white) and women often feel intimidated at the thought of addressing a male-dominated meeting. So they are organising a separate event where non-white women can speak with confidence. It does not carry any privileges, or power, or money. Someone really will have to justify why they are so desperate to crash a private meeting set up to discuss black women's experiences of racism. Do they also demand the right to speak at meetings of, say, cancer survivors, or retired bus drivers, or mothers of twins?
Why does it need excusing? Organise your own meeting. There are plenty of men's groups around that, oddly enough, don't allow women. A white person's group would need some defending, since white people dominate almost every meeting of any kind, but if you were particularly keen to discuss racism, there is no reason why you should not actively ask for white peoples' input.
From being outnumbered, in every other meeting. It is quite clear. As in every other British university, union meetings are dominated by white students (as most of us are white) and women often feel intimidated at the thought of addressing a male-dominated meeting. So they are organising a separate event where non-white women can speak with confidence. It does not carry any privileges, or power, or money. Someone really will have to justify why they are so desperate to crash a private meeting set up to discuss black women's experiences of racism. Do they also demand the right to speak at meetings of, say, cancer survivors, or retired bus drivers, or mothers of twins?
You only notice that now because of multiculturalism and political correctness.
White people really dominated everything in England when i was a child - i didn't notice it then - i lived in England, it's the way it was.
Now i notice it, now i hear about it, now i get it rammed down my throat.
Multiculturalism and liberal progressiveness, call it what you want, has done nothing positive, at all.
Why does it need excusing? Organise your own meeting. There are plenty of men's groups around that, oddly enough, don't allow women.
This is another good point I hadn't considered. Why does the thread title refer to "events" when the Spectator article it references mentions only one? It's not like this version of racism is preventing anyone from going about their normal life, surely?
You only notice that now because of multiculturalism and political correctness.
White people really dominated everything in England when i was a child - i didn't notice it then - i lived in England, it's the way it was.
Now i notice it, now i hear about it, now i get it rammed down my throat.
Multiculturalism and liberal progressiveness, call it what you want, has done nothing positive, at all.
It sounds like you're projecting your viewpoint onto the whole country. Would you rather we went back to the fifties? You can't have something rammed down your throat if you're actively seeking it out and highlighting it in multiple threads.
But although it may seem amusing just think that many of idiots are the mouth-breathing morons who will be running the country in the future as politicians and business leaders.
What's BME stand for and what's a "non binary" person when they're at home?
As for the event, it doesn't exactly sound like a barrel of laughs, so maybe the whites and all men got off lightly. I can imagine the type of people attending, and the sort of debate being hostile, as well as tedious beyond all endurance.
Our meeting was disrupted today by two brave white-cis-men
How did they know they were 'cis'?
who were so oppressed and marginalised by a bunch of BME Women and n/b people who had the nerve to hold an event that would actively exclude white-cis-men. I mean, none of us would ever know that kind of pain and oppression - OH NO WAIT.
"OH NO WAIT" what? Have any of these women ever known "the pain and oppression" of being prevented from attending a meeting (outside of a religious centre) on the basis of their race or gender?
Complete idiots. If they want to discriminate against big, bad, white, straight men, they should hold this meeting at a private location at their own expense.
Why does it need excusing? Organise your own meeting. There are plenty of men's groups around that, oddly enough, don't allow women. A white person's group would need some defending, since white people dominate almost every meeting of any kind, but if you were particularly keen to discuss racism, there is no reason why you should not actively ask for white peoples' input.
From being outnumbered, in every other meeting. It is quite clear. As in every other British university, union meetings are dominated by white students (as most of us are white) and women often feel intimidated at the thought of addressing a male-dominated meeting. So they are organising a separate event where non-white women can speak with confidence. It does not carry any privileges, or power, or money. Someone really will have to justify why they are so desperate to crash a private meeting set up to discuss black women's experiences of racism. Do they also demand the right to speak at meetings of, say, cancer survivors, or retired bus drivers, or mothers of twins?
I am in two minds here to be honest - I understand the issues you raise and sympathise with the problems faced - but the method of active exclusion still troubles me. I would have, in creating the publicity for this, tried to emphasise that this was a meeting aimed at getting the experiences of BME women and that the organisers considered it important for them to be heard, but without rejecting others. If I saw that, as a white cis woman I would be unlikely to go as the aim of the meeting was so obviously not to get my input.
What's BME stand for and what's a "non binary" person when they're at home?
As for the event, it doesn't exactly sound like a barrel of laughs, so maybe the whites and all men got off lightly. I can imagine the type of people attending, and the sort of debate being hostile, as well as tedious beyond all endurance.
I am in two minds here to be honest - I understand the issues you raise and sympathise with the problems faced - but the method of active exclusion still troubles me. I would have, in creating the publicity for this, tried to emphasise that this was a meeting aimed at getting the experiences of BME women and that the organisers considered it important for them to be heard, but without rejecting others. If I saw that, as a white cis woman I would be unlikely to go as the aim of the meeting was so obviously not to get my input.
That, to me, is by far the more sensible option. The initial position appears to be more of a provocative 'statement' rather than a plausible attempt to address inequalities. If a statement is being made to illustrate a reversal in perceived inequalities, then it should be owned as such.
Ooh, such drama. There's a difference between being banned and being politely asked not to come, I'd have thought.
And all the whining about terminology, good lord. Cis, nonbinary, BME - these are all really common concepts if you're remotely interested in anything to do with prejudice or society. And they all come up in the top one or two search results in google, too.
Ooh, such drama. There's a difference between being banned and being politely asked not to come, I'd have thought.
Not really.
And all the whining about terminology, good lord. Cis, nonbinary, BME - these are all really common concepts if you're remotely interested in anything to do with prejudice or society []. And they all come up in the top one or two search results in google, too.
They're not at all and I expect you know that, as anyone who's remotely interested in anything to do with prejudice or society would. Looking at the 'cisgender' Wikipedia page leads me to suspect that this fad word really only came into popular use with Facebook's introduction of custom gender options a little over a year ago. It may have been common among the transgender community for a little longer, but it's clearly a very recent invention. I'd be surprised if it's even made it into the OED yet.
And all the whining about terminology, good lord. Cis, nonbinary, BME - these are all really common concepts if you're remotely interested in anything to do with prejudice or society. And they all come up in the top one or two search results in google, too.
If someone said CIS i'd think the co-op insurance service my parents used to have and as for non binary i'm a computer sort of person so i'd assume it was about none base 2 maths and having used computer systems based on CME and DME it would not of surprised me if there was a BME system as a precursor etc.
Comments
Now, lie down and take it!
I thought it meant mixed race, you learn something every day.
Thank god I did not go uni, I would not have lasted a week around these people.
Hexawhats?
Funny that the people who support them are usually the first ones to complain about racism being an over used term though. At least now they know what it feels like. Fortunately this is an isolated event when compared with the racism that minorities have had to face since the fifties and they didn't even have an establishment stalwart like the Spectator on their side.
Absolutely mental, what were they thinking?!
Wtf?
I cannot wait to see these idiots when finally in the workplace, I would love to be a fly on the wall when they find out they cannot behave in such a way .
There is nothing liberal, progressive or egalitarian about such measures including safe spaces and echo chambers to prevent uncomfortable views, scientific consensus and rationality from being heard by ideologues or voiced by their ideological opponents. And, beyond this case you'll find such events also ban anyone, man or woman, who thinks the wrong way (case in point, the Honey Badger Brigade at the Calgary Expo or Christina Hoff Sommers recent talk at Oberlin College).
From being outnumbered, in every other meeting. It is quite clear. As in every other British university, union meetings are dominated by white students (as most of us are white) and women often feel intimidated at the thought of addressing a male-dominated meeting. So they are organising a separate event where non-white women can speak with confidence. It does not carry any privileges, or power, or money. Someone really will have to justify why they are so desperate to crash a private meeting set up to discuss black women's experiences of racism. Do they also demand the right to speak at meetings of, say, cancer survivors, or retired bus drivers, or mothers of twins?
"I mean, none of us would ever know that kind of pain and oppression - OH NO WAIT."
Wise. Up.
You only notice that now because of multiculturalism and political correctness.
White people really dominated everything in England when i was a child - i didn't notice it then - i lived in England, it's the way it was.
Now i notice it, now i hear about it, now i get it rammed down my throat.
Multiculturalism and liberal progressiveness, call it what you want, has done nothing positive, at all.
"Tidy up your room, Sarah."
"STOP OPPRESSING ME DAD! You white cis males are all the same!"
*sigh*
These people are simply batshit crazy.
But although it may seem amusing just think that many of idiots are the mouth-breathing morons who will be running the country in the future as politicians and business leaders.
Oh dear.
As for the event, it doesn't exactly sound like a barrel of laughs, so maybe the whites and all men got off lightly. I can imagine the type of people attending, and the sort of debate being hostile, as well as tedious beyond all endurance.
They sound completely off their rockers.
Complete idiots. If they want to discriminate against big, bad, white, straight men, they should hold this meeting at a private location at their own expense.
I am in two minds here to be honest - I understand the issues you raise and sympathise with the problems faced - but the method of active exclusion still troubles me. I would have, in creating the publicity for this, tried to emphasise that this was a meeting aimed at getting the experiences of BME women and that the organisers considered it important for them to be heard, but without rejecting others. If I saw that, as a white cis woman I would be unlikely to go as the aim of the meeting was so obviously not to get my input.
Black and Minority Ethnic.
That, to me, is by far the more sensible option. The initial position appears to be more of a provocative 'statement' rather than a plausible attempt to address inequalities. If a statement is being made to illustrate a reversal in perceived inequalities, then it should be owned as such.
And all the whining about terminology, good lord. Cis, nonbinary, BME - these are all really common concepts if you're remotely interested in anything to do with prejudice or society. And they all come up in the top one or two search results in google, too.
If someone said CIS i'd think the co-op insurance service my parents used to have and as for non binary i'm a computer sort of person so i'd assume it was about none base 2 maths and having used computer systems based on CME and DME it would not of surprised me if there was a BME system as a precursor etc.