Post a response:
|
I'm back writing another small post to illustrate my thoughts. I have seen some back and forth discussion vis-a-vis my points on intersectionality in the creation of spaces which cater to all youth-lovers. Pharmakon has already highlighted how I have been misconstrued by some (whether or not this misinterpretation is intentional on some people's parts is... to be decided.) In-and-out of BC, there is an odd trend of viewing inclusion as an encroachment. This mindset is all out of whack. Humor me. If you're in a bar which targets itself as being a safe-haven for a particular group which you're a part of, you might be enthused to participate. Yet if upon entering, you find that it (informally) only caters to a sub-section of said group, you might be a bit shocked. You might find that your participation is limited by this, and you may even feel angered that you are being excluded from one of the only spaces you can meaningfully participate in openly. If you aren't getting the analogy, imagine the bar is Boychat and your favorite "sick freak" (me, according to Django) is the person whose shocked. This person might continue to participate within the area because they are not explicitly barred from it. Maybe the space served an important purpose during a certain time in their life, or they value certain members within it. Perhaps they still believe in the base-value of the group. Either way, the exclusion is of an informal, insidious type, which turns away new members and makes existing ones want to slip away. Eventually, they might seek to advocate that the area be a bit more inclusive in its patronage. Reasonably so - maybe they want to bring their other friends nearby this area to taste the tequila, sip on a shake, or even take a lick of some ice cream. Yet the members, who are accustomed to this space being solely for them, see this as an encroachment. They lack the understanding that it is not an encroachment, but instead, simply requesting what was advertised by the space: a safe-haven for all members of that group, not for certain members. It is incredibly easy to see it as an encroachment because not only are they not used to having their own spaces because of their own plight as a persecuted group, but because they have successfully managed to other groups which in fact compromise themselves. This notion, in fact, being aided by the informal exclusion of certain patrons. By seeing their own group as disconnected from broader culture entirely, they create an odd default version, which reflects the pre-existing membership of the area. Yet, as we've established, this image is inaccurate. So there is a furious debacle over encroachment. People feel as thought their space is being encroached upon, because they are being asked to respectfully share it with others. They feel they are being forced to change, and this angers them, because the whole of society has asked them to change for no good reason. Yet they neglect to realize that the people requesting change are not that oppressive society, nor agents thereof, but in fact people of their own community. In essence, they've managed both to soak in the prejudice of the surrounding society while at the same time disavowing it. Anyway. I'm not asking you to get on your knees for gay black feminist youth-lovers. I'm asking y'all to consider that inclusion of all people is probably a good staple for any forum seeking to bring together an already damaged community. |