Am furious with NUS Women's Campaign

Annie, your analogy re wheelchairs, ramps etc was exactly what I was thinking about earlier on, when reading through this debate (and trying to cook the tea...)

Asking people to wear ear defenders is not really any different from expecting me to wear specs so I can both see what's going on at the front and take notes. I have to wear 'funny face gear'. I don't expect everyone else to wear it so I can feel better about my fab combo of short sight, long sight and astigmatism. Why the hell should they?

There's 'reasonable accommodation' and 'unreasonable accommodation'.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/louise-pennington/triggering-jazz-hands_b_6940116.html

Jeanne, I do understand. I just disagree about where the greater harm lies for the clapping issue.

I understand what posters are saying but to be honest, I think feminists do have a responsibility, not necessarily to be inclusionary, but not to be exclusionary if it can be avoided.

blis, sorry, but if you think this then you do not understand.

This is not inclusionary.

It is excluding a different group of people, that's all. As such, it's a waste of time.

Absolutely agree with that, Almond.

It is not 'inclusive' to hold a political meeting with decision making power over thousands of other people and declare that only a few people are going to be allowed to make noise to express their opinion.

It is an example of literal privilege for a speaker to be able to decide how an audience is allowed to respond to them.

I find myself unable to get working up about the clapping issue. I understand what posters are saying but to be honest, I think feminists do have a responsibility, not necessarily to be inclusionary, but not to be exclusionary if it can be avoided.

If someone points out that a behaviour causes difficulty, why not try and alleviate that difficulty ? I agree that adjustments should be reasonable and proportional but suggesting that people don't clap strikes me as neither unreasonable or disproportionate.

I don't have too much time for the notion that all feminist thought should be intersectional but when it doesn't cause harm to women to deal with a side issue that accommodates others, I'm okay with that.

What does piss me off more is that it's used as an excuse to attack liberal feminist thinking. We just can't get away from the idea that liberal feminism is a watered down theory that we all pass through on our way to radicalism. The small stuff matters as well and individuals matter - if my actions harm someone or cause them discomfort, it would be pretty dickish of me to dismiss it without at least considering the issue.

It isn't a wind up. This is student politics today.

I smell a wind up somewhere...

So the facts according to that article are that it is one (or more) of the people presenting who have generalised anxiety disorder and only feel they are able to speak if women listen to them in silence (no clapping, no whooping).

That is a speaker asking for the whole dynamics of a conference to change, to move things more away from a dialogue between speaker and audience, to one in which the speaker holds all the power.

It absolutely fits with Tumblr special snowflake style requests, which are effectively about silencing other people to amplify your own voice.

I would say it is a basic human right for everyone to be able to make noises to express their opinion at a democratic meeting.

Sorry NotCitrus did you mean to say that bisexuals had adopted Jazz hands instead of clapping or was that a typo?

The arguments about inclusivity always seem to stem from being a "decent" person. There is no political analysis. The underlying message is that a decent woman accommodates others, puts others first, downplays her own needs and those of other women, silences herself when it makes others uncomfortable. This is not good feminist action.

Jazz hands? Seriously?

These are women at University preparing for life. If you have anxiety about other women clapping, you need to find a way to manage that.

ds loves watching fireworks but hates the loud bangs and noise so he wears ear defenders to displays. He also hates the sound of hand dryers so he has learnt to put up with them and control his anxiety when he hears one.
I haven't read VIZ for a while but the ramblings of the NUS are a great substitute. Agree NUS has always been NUTS

I read that a woman was asked to leave the conference for clapping.

Actually, when I read upthread, you've already claimed I said it was only women being required to care, and I've already explained I didn't mean or say that, so I don't see why you're repeating it.

I think it is fair to say you didn't grasp my meaning, if you repeatedly attribute points of view to me that I've already explicitly denied holding.

Buffy - yes people are attacking the women's movement because of this, which is a pity, especially when many of the attackers are in fact women. Who should really be praising the people involved for being more considerate and perceptive than the idiots who are laughing at them.

Well, I didn't think you did grasp it.

I don't imply there was anything malicious or wilful about that.

I haven't anywhere claimed it's only women being asked, have I?

Nor is it a change in my argument to point out the size of the women's movement.

Buffy neither was it fair of her to imply I didn't grasp exactly what she is saying, when I certainly have grasped not only what she is saying but what she is carefully not saying. But apparently that was OK? She has claimed more than once that it's only women who are either being asked, or asking themselves, to make efforts to be considerate, and that is clearly not true. When I pointed that out, she initially ignored (or didn't grasp) this. She has now changed her claim slightly to say that the NUS women's movement is a tiny proportion of the world's population and has better things to do (things she personally values more highly than inclusion for people with sensory issues) so it should be an SEP (someone else's problem). I agree with her that the NUS women's movement is a tiny proportion of the world's population - I even agree with her that there are other issues to be considered, but I disagree with her that this means they are more important to the NUS women's movement since the problem of people with these issues accessing the environment where they could even consider belonging to the NUS women's movement is a real one and the ability to participate should they find themselves in a position to potentially be able to should be encouraged not closed off. She has also indulged in some classic 'whatabouttery' to try and deflect the argument.

(Sorry, meph, aware you are probably implying that, and implying nothing so crude as competing group interests!)

I think meph is right, but it's all happening at the level of social conditioning, not at the level of actual competing interests from groups of people.

Women are increasingly being conditioned to think that they have ample time and energy to be accommodating. That's what it is. Doesn't matter if what they are trying to accommodate is something that should be accommodated or not - the problem is that they've internalized the idea they're naturally privileged and exclusionary and should be working all the hours god sends to change this. Even if they're not actually in a position to make useful changes (as is the case here, where there are mutually incompatible needs, neither of which can be perfectly served by the changes suggested).