Am furious with NUS Women's Campaign

Jeanne you may not be traumatised by your condition. That does not mean that people with ASD or other issues aren't traumatised by their conditions, in fact it is often the feeling of trauma that makes them avoid the situations that trigger their issue.

gently, yes, I know the NS women's movement can't cure sensory issues. But that's not what my rather silly comparison is about.

What it is about, is that I am sad and gobsmacked that the women's campaign is no longer really about women any more.

Yes, it is a very good thing for all movements to be aware of the difficulties members with double oppressions face. I'm a woman with sensory issues, and I'm interested in inclusion issues with disability in HE. It is something I spend a lot of time on. But, I feel sad when the implicit message seems to be 'women should care more about issues that are not exclusive to women'. This is bad for two reasons. One, it'd be good to think that people other than women are compassionate enough to push forward on these necessary causes, and two, if the women's campaign is spending its time on disability inclusion to the extent it works against itself, then it is no longer really for women, is it?

The bigger problem is the amount of time and energy women and feminist groups are increasingly putting into these questions, which is not matched by energy put in by men

I don't actually think that is necessarily true. Certainly in the arts world the performances suitable for people with sensory issues are neither run exclusively by or for females. They may not even have been the brainchild of females. Similarly with Occupy. Many people with sensory issues are, in fact, men. In this specific case it's women talking about the issue because it arose in connection with a women's event. And I'll say again - I don't think the request was necessarily in connection with PTSD (although it wouldn't surprise me because let's face it, not many people get exercised over the issues of people with ASD or similar). Why does everyone feel the need to twist this and make it about PTSD or DV? Sensory issues are A Thing for many people.

Oh, that's annoying, I've missed out a whole paragraph, and now look like an irrelevant whinger. I should be used to it. Sorry.

The reason for me pointing out the fainting thing is: it's physically unpleasant and socially awkward, but it's not traumatic. There is a big difference, and an important one.

I don't think it's a hedgehog motorway thing at all. There is no way that the NUS womens' movement can cure sensory issues, so they can't do anything other than (a) ignore the problem or (b) be considerate.

I think some people have misunderstood the problem and viewed it through the prism of DV or similar. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it's about DV at all. I think its about disability. If it was a DV issue then yes, tackle the root not the results - but if its about disability then all you can do is make adjustments so people aren't excluded. Some people seem mighty put out that they should be asked to consider doing this.

gently, I don't think it is fair to call it 'trauma'.

I have a condition that means if I spend too long under fluro lights, especially flickering ones, I faint. It's quite dramatic. And it's fairly unpleasant for me in the time before I faint.

A blind person who cannot see what's going on it a meeting could, you know, feel excluded. They may feel they cannot attend, because the social cues aren't there to allow them to participate. Or, they may come but have a diminished experience. A student with ASD may feel they can't come if there is clapping. Or, they may come (and, eg, use ear defenders if that works), and have a diminished experience.

The point is that it is not as easy to prioritise needs as the people justifying this idea have implied.

That matters, because the bigger problem is not 'shall we do jazz hands, or shall we clap'? The bigger problem is the amount of time and energy women and feminist groups are increasingly putting into these questions, which is not matched by energy put in by men, and which, which it might be praiseworthy, ultimately works to give them a smaller amount of time and energy for other things.

I have said before: if we are talking about triggers, in the PTSD sense, why is there not constant, shocked, widespread discussion about why so many women have PTSD? Why are we not talking about that? Why, at the very least, are we not saying that the problems women with PTSD are facing need to be accommodated in areas outside the NUS conferences, by male students and by teachers?

Buffy why aren't people in other debate-like situations concerned about those with sensory issues? PMQs, political party conferences, other public debates? Are these women shooting themselves in the foot in their (laudable) desire to accommodate those who might otherwise be excluded?

Those are VERY good questions. Someone has to start though (as has been pointed out above, Occupy actually started it - unless anyone has an earlier example). People complain about PMQs all the time, nothing ever changes. As I mentioned above, the arts world is trying to tackle these issues (primarily relating to kids but not exclusively) in a small, pigeon steps sort of way.

BuffyEpistemiwhatsit
"Yeah Dotheyfloat it's PC Gorn MAAAAAAAAD, right? hmm"

No, it's a Merry-Go-Round where the ride never ends.

No, it fucking isn't, BTW. It's the same thing. It's also the same as the 'no dogs no gypsies' signs that used to be prevalent (I have gypsy heritage, my family (especially my mother and grandmother) knew all about exclusion and othering based on race). The people who requested consideration were doing exactly the same thing as you presumably did when fighting for your accommodation. But you don't want them to get what you got, you want them out in other room out of the way, or wearing funny headgear (but that's nice and inclusionary isn't it) just so you can clap. As Hak said - since when was clapping a basic human right? Your attitude speaks volumes (much more loudly than your clapping ever would). Luckily for the people who wanted to be included not excluded it seems as though the people running the NUS event are more considerate and empathetic than you are.

This thread has made me properly annoyed.

I think anything to do with hands, clapping, jazz hands and so on should be banned - it's discriminatory against amputees and reinforces the patriarchal concept of 'correct' body image.

People, if the majority feel the need express themselves as a group (which in itself is a form of discrimination against the minority who don't ) should restrain themselves to blinking rapidly. This of course could be construed as a silencing tactic against the speaker, who may be representing an oppressed minority, when they are met with a wall of intimidating stony silence to everything they say.

Sigh. Victims. Victims everywhere.

What is there to do?

Archery - I think it's outrageous, since you ask. How would you feel about a separate room for women or black people, or a separate costume for them (preferably one that made them look a bit daft)? How would you feel about taking all the ramps etc away so a wheelchair user can't participate? Because most people can walk, right? So why on earth 'be nice' to the minority who can't? Oh, that's right. Because it's a decent thing to do. This is actually no different.

I really hadn't thought about it much before even though all my kids have minor sensory issues and I have a specific issue myself that means I sometimes avoid things like rowdy Shouty meetings (but not always, there are so many variables in play). I personally would never ask for this sort of adjustment, I don't need it, but now I've read about it I completely support those that do. If people with genuine issues request it then, honestly, why the fuck not??

Northern- what you are suggesting is completely 'othering' the people with sensory issues. Possibly even deporting them to a different room! If everyone uses jazz hands nobody is othered, nobody is labelled as a freak, some people get the opportunity to demonstrate that they are a bit considerate. Except it seems most people, as it turns out, aren't. Not even slightly.

Do you really think it's acceptable to make a group of people with what is after all a disability dress funny so that they can be able to participate in a political gathering? Really???? Blimey.

Who was against the clapping? If I've read right.could its be an autistic person? Although with a ds with.asd idif he had this issue ...i would provide ear defenders to help with that.

Patallic - Occupy did for a time at least try to be ultra-inclusionist. And copped some flack for it. I don't know why some posters think it's only women who can have sensory issues, many boys/men also have such issues. Why, actually, should they have to wear ear defenders or go and sit in a different room (FFS) to participate? Clapping HAS been a social norm but so was beating kids till we got a bit more civilized. Many theatrical productions (including Pantos) now have special performances for kids/adults with so sorry issues precisely because, belatedly, people are realising this is A Thing.

YY to the poster who talked about competing noise - I'm dyspraxic, personally I'm fine with clapping etc but competing noise can cause complete meltdown. I've never, actually, felt that society should change to accommodate me but I also don't think that switching to jazz hands if there are actual people who have requested this for genuine reasons is the worst thing in the world either.

As for the use of the phrase 'triggering anxiety' - I think you'll find that's a perfectly correct and acceptable useage. It's the useage of the word triggering without then specifying what has been triggered that is incorrect, it's another one of those modern parlance things where words and their useage is completely mangled. Feminists (I certainly consider myself to be one) have attempted to appropriate the word - well, fine, good even, it is serving a purpose - but that ceases to be valid if you then try and remove the word from its use in other contexts specifically in medical/psychological contexts. It is perfectly appropriate to talk about triggering anxiety or triggering a sensory meltdown. It's been accepted parlance for rather longer than the more modern useage.

That response completely fails to reflect who objected to the NUS tweet - as far as I could see it was mostly other feminists, but she's just cherry-picked the 2 more right-wing punters.

Jeanne there's nothing inherently wrong with it, except (as I said upthread), that you then exclude blind people

Hmm. I think there's a difference between being 'excluded' and being traumatized to the point that you physically cannot attend a meeting. I think that a blind person not seeing jazz hands is sad but it doesn't mean they can't attend a meeting. A person who is highly sensitive to noise (so, some with with ASD, some dyspraxic people, some people with other (diagnosed) reasons for sound sensitivity) may actually not be able to attend a rowdy meeting. That's exckusion. Not seeing jazz hands isn't exclusion. Some groups of people are habitually excluded from things and people with sound sensitivity or extreme anxiety are such people. Initially I thought this suggestion was daft but thinking about it it makes a lot of sense. And the reaction of people just underlines how some others are just routinely marginalized.

This is the natural consequence of routinely pandering to increasingly small minority interests in an effort to avoid offending anyone; a blizzard of Special Snowflakes trying to impose their uniqueness on each other, in a victimization arms race.

It's hilarious.

Triggered by clapping at a conference => must be accommodated

Triggered by penis at rape counselling => horrible bigot.