THREAD:
The question of how to balance different peoples’ needs in public spaces is important. It’s being had in bad faith right now, by people who want to make the case for excluding minority groups- but it speaks to something important that lots of communities are considering.
As we become more connected, as difference becomes more visible and distance is truncated, our ability to impact one another is outstripping the current infrastructure we have to care for and protect one another. We don’t have good heuristics for balancing different needs.
And often- too often- a request that a particular group or person be accommodated is interpreted as a demand that other, potentially conflicting needs be sidelined. That’s just not true.
For example: in the current discussion about single-sex spaces, many people are insisting that the potential presence of trans bodies is always, inherently, traumatic for cis women and girls.
That simply isn’t true for everyone. It *might* be true for some people.
That difference is important when it comes to deciding how we share space, and what constitutes anti-social behavior.
It is hugely important to take people’s physical or mental health needs into account when we organise communities and design public space.
We can choose to share space in a way that includes as many people as possible, or we construct public space so that some people are deliberately shut out. It’s an ongoing conversation about what we owe to each other.
And flexibility and listening are vital to that conversation. There will never be one blanket rule, applicable in all situations, which protects every person from all possible harm. That doesn’t mean rules are useless. It means they should be negotiable.
I have extremely sensitive hearing. In public spaces, what counts as normal volume to most people is actively painful to me. What I do about that, though, depends on the situation.
It’s not fair for me to ask that every cafe in the world keep its music low.
Some people have hearing trouble, use hearing aids, or actively need things to be louder.
And there are specific situations where there’s a general expectation of lots of noise. Gigs and clubs I usually avoid, even though I love the idea of live music.
But if I’m in a cafe and it’s just a smidge too loud for me and it’s reasonably empty, I often will ask if the music could be turned down. Same thing if I’m in a group of my friends. In fact many of my friends now know not to blast music without warning around me.
I know a lot of people with trauma triggers that are different from my own, and the more I know the easier it is to accommodate them. That’s good. It wasn’t so long ago that social convention was that anyone with an atypical need or challenge was just expected to cope.
The world of disability advocacy is light years ahead on this, of course.
I’m not assuming that there is something traumatising about trans bodies, by the way- just noting that trauma triggers exist, and people develop them for all sorts of reasons, and there’s rarely any logic or prejudice involved.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
TLDR: misogynist extremism and white supremacy are linked and always have been.
In this generation especially, frustrated misogyny and sexual entitlement are key recruiting factors for the far right. Many modern extremists were radicalised through the incel/PUA manosphere. >
>this is horrific in its own right, of course. Gender-based violence against women is ALREADY a hate crime.
But in many countries, it’s next to impossible to separate the logic of male supremacy from the logic of white supremacy. So much of the ideology of the latter is about >
> ‘protecting our women (sic)’. The logic, to paraphrase Ta-Nehisi Coates, is that white women are exclusively the property of white men, who must protect them from imagined outsiders. This dogma has been regurgitated by white supremacists from the 1920s to 2021. >
Being reckless with the lives of others isn’t really in the spirit of Christmas, is it?
Let me break this down for anyone who feels like they are going mad-as someone who does political analysis for a living but who is also, crucially, one of the sappiest soppiest Carol-hollering fairy-light-festooning Christmas Spirit elves you will ever meet:
Really, stay at home.
For ages, cultural conservatives have laid claim to Christmas as if they own it- which is odd, because it’s a celebration that’s meant to be all about tolerance and nobody left out in the cold and open hearts and all that stuff. (With optional Jesus).
This poses a problem.
[thread] We’ve heard a lot about the downsides of so much of our professional lives moving to video platforms. But I think that for some people there have also been real advantages.
EG: I’m physically small. I am not used to taking up the same space as everyone else. It’s great!
Women and other AFAB people are used to monitoring our physical presence. If you’re petite like me, you get spoken over/patronised/dismissed. But if you’re taller/ heavier, you get to worry about being ‘intimidating’ or taking up more space than women are allowed to occupy.
I’m also neuroatypical and sometimes have a problem working out whose face I should be looking at/managing eye contact. On zoom? That’s not a problem. You can just look at the screen- and you can see everyone at once! >
Spent today reading ‘Hood Feminism’ by @Karnythia - excellent, and required reading for all white people in the feminist movement. Found myself called out in the last chapter. Which I appreciated, though it was painful to read, as it made the hit home.
It got me thinking >
Over the years, I’ve watched so many white, cis and/or otherwise privileged progressives behave like wankers when they’re called out. I’ve seen people use the fact of angry criticism to play the victim and double down on their own wankery. It’s boring, predictable, and so toxic.
I include myself in that- I haven’t always done well when called out, although better than some, mainly because I have a reputation for well-reasoned apologies (‘performative apology’ is actually what MK calls me out for in her book).
I am, in fact, pretty good at saying sorry. >
Since we’re all talking about the ‘Blitz Spirit’, and how we should act like Londoners in WW2, here’s something that never makes it into the official story.
Remember those iconic photos of working-class Londoners sheltering in tube stations? Well, that wasn’t meant to happen >
The government did not build the recommended municipal shelters, preferring to leave that to private companies + individuals. When the bombs first fell, the underground was barricaded. The fear was that once the working class went underground, they would never come up again >
The hardest hit areas were poor, immigrant and and working-class communities in the East End, who had nowhere to go. Meanwhile, large clubs and hotels were digging out private shelters.
In 1940, activists led the people of Stepney to storm the Savoy shelter during an air raid.
I went to a private school. I am keenly aware of how privileged I am to have done so. They are absolutely, categorically, engines of inequality, and I don’t know how anyone of conscience can argue otherwise.
> It wasn’t just the actual education I received at that school that made a difference. It was the support of teachers who had time to engage with a needy, intelligent child like me, within a structure that encouraged the highest expectations. >
> the most important lessons I learned at private school included that sense of entitlement, that base assumption of ‘why not me?’. I was on a large scholarship, and I was expected to repay that charity by achieving the highest grades and getting into Oxbridge.