Too bad that this is still needed, instead of being able to safely mingle with everyone, but I definitely get why and it seems like a good initiative. Even here in the relatively progressive Netherlands I still notice that quite some men and even some women still have quite sexist, queerphobic, and xenophobic views. It’s a certain subgroup of people who appear to make it their personality to make as many offensive jokes as possible. Hopefully we can one day grow beyond this behaviour.
Here in Brazil, the wave of conservatism is very strong, mainly because it’s linked to religion, “good customs” and the family. They suffer jokes, physical and psychological aggression and death. It may sound silly, but for these people it is a great victory to have a place where they can feel comfortable and not be afraid of dying.
Would be even better when people could raise their voices against sexist, queerphobic, and xenophobic views in public instead of cheering for projects creating safe zones out of sight...
I’m not sure why your response is so hostile against my support of the idea, or why you make so many unfounded assumptions.
How do you know I don’t raise my voice against those views in public? And I never said anything about such spaces being “zones out of sight”, that was your addition. I didn’t say that this article’s idea was the limit of what I support.
Sure it could be “even better”… literally any idea could be even better. But if you attack everything less than perfection, we will never get anywhere.
No, that's not some "not quite perfect but definitely an improvement"-idea. It's bullshit moving people out of sight. And no that is not "my addition" but a simply fact, one very prominently pointed out in the very first sentence of this report ("Nestled within a warehouse...").
That's a problem, a "but we did something to help"-diversion at best, but no solution.
Because out "of sight, out of mind" does never actually solve anything. It literally pushes LGBTQ out of sight so the homophobics hopefully find another topic to be enraged about... for some limited time only.
That's not a solution. I thought we all had agreed at this point that solving the issue is about open and fair representation as a completely normal part of, as well as clear support in society...
(Just like being personally offended when someone doesn't perfectly agree with you doesn't solve anything. Or how did you interpret my criticism about cheering for a project that creates out-of-sight safe zones as anything other but critcism about the initiators of the project and the author of that report? Is there something on your mind that I should have read - between your ... one line of statement? Yes, you can read that part as personal criticism or just dismiss it as a quip because I really have no clue where you found that hostility...)
Add comment