audreygrace412 I hear you but life hasn't gotten any harder than it ever was before. In fact, life has gotten much easier and given people much more free time and energy to direct towards personal hobbies whereas they used to basically just work, eat and sleep on repeat. Somehow though, with life conditions being much worse and life expectancy being much shorter, people were able to deal with "traumatic" situations like hearing disagreeing opinions that they've never considered and hurt their feelings much better than people today. So I don't understand why we need safe spaces [i]now[/i] that the world is becoming more diverse, accepting and safe than it ever was before? "They're for people who are just struggling to get through the next day, who want to talk about the things that are bothering them in a place where they know their feelings and experiences won't be mocked or criticized." ^ Isn't that what diaries and loved ones and support groups etc. are for? Why do they need a designated physical area when they can just join a support group, call or visit a friend etc? Why does a public area need to be taken away from the public to appease a minority group who are more emotionally sensitive than others? Everyone faces hard times but the majority of people don't need a "safe space" as a result. Furthermore, no studies find that the people who need safe spaces have had any harder a life than their peers who don't need safe spaces. Additionally, some argue that safe spaces statistically make these people more emotionally fragile not stronger. So they think they're healing but in reality, they're just getting worse by further isolating themselves.

Cinders Things haven't gotten any harder than it ever was before. ^^-- For you. For people like you. Not for the single mother who has to work two jobs, or the immigrant struggling to learn English as people fear him for his religion. We're in a new era, certainly, with new and different struggles, but it's not "better" for all of us. Only some of us. And that's the point. people were able to deal with "traumatic" situations like hearing disagreeing opinions To repeat or rephrase from the article: Safe spaces aren't about protecting someone from a different opinion. They aren't meant to be echo chambers. They are meant to help protect people from hateful language and attitudes they are generally hearing on a daily basis. In the case of LGBT individuals, this language and attitudes may be coming from their families. So they need to find their own. ... the world is becoming more diverse, accepting and safe than it ever was before... If you look to history, you'll note that every large leap forward, every step of progress towards righting societal wrongs, is met with a huge backlash and opposition. The when the Suffregettes won, there was increasing violence against women. The MLK movement faced Jim Crow. And with one of our most progressive presidents yet, our nation is in a xenophobic furor to elect his polar opposite. We've always lived in a diverse world, and while on the surface it appears accepting, scratch beneath it and you'll see its ugly underbelly. Ask any person of color, any LGBT, any exploited young woman, any homeless veteran and they will tell you how unkind this world still can be to them. Isn't that what diaries and loved ones and support groups etc. are for? As mentioned, some of these people have been victimized BY their own families and loved ones, and these safe spaces ARE the support groups. They ARE the therapy. Therapy which anyone can access, regardless of health insurance, economic status, or anything else. That's why they exist, that's why they're needed. We have designated physical areas for recovering alcoholics, shelters for abuse victims, treatment centers for the mentally ill. But most of these places are also meant to hide them away, to pretend they don't exist. Like nursing homes. If we don't see them, we can ignore the problem. How are these safe spaces hurting you? Why does it matter to you how people heal? Is it because now you have to hear about them and acknowledge that they exist, that these problems are still here, and that our society isn't as wonderful as you thought? Everyone faces hard times but the majority of people don't need a "safe space" as a result. . This reminds me of the argument against clinical depression. "Everyone feels sad, but we get over it, so why can't you?" I want to remind you that privilege is thinking that something isn't a problem because it doesn't affect you personally. ... no studies find... Studies? Of safe spaces? You sound so sure of this. What about studies of individuals who have experienced trauma? Those with PTSD, or mental disorders, as a result of how they grew up? Are you a therapist? A psychologist? A counselor? Any high school teacher can tell you that some students need more emotional assistance than others, and that's just teenagers. The only thing they are "isolating themselves" from is the cause of their pain. They aren't hiding from liberal or conservative ideas, they aren't searching for "political correctness," they are searching for people who understand what they are going through and won't say things like, "Yeah, I was depressed once, but then I ate ice cream." or "Yeah, that sucks that your mom kicked you out because you were gay. Once, my mom grounded me because I got a tattoo, that was the worst summer ever." Because those things aren't empathy. Those comments trivialize what these people are going through. I say this not only as an educator, who has seen and taught children with trauma, but also as the close relative of someone with a mental illness that resulted from trauma. It's real, and people need places to talk about it. Why is that such a bad thing?

ThePrincesTale This was a brilliantly-written article on something I didn't actually know much about, so it was also very helpful. "Every step of progress towards righting societal wrongs, is met with a huge backlash and opposition" I emphatically agree and this is something I'm seeing so much, but have never been able to put words to it up til now.

audreygrace412 Actually, I wasn't speaking for myself, I was speaking for most people in general, overall. Why should it be easier for a single mother who is being negligent to her child by denying them a necessary father? (Widowed mothers are different.) Where are the statistics that it's harder for immigrants to learn English today, in a more globalized society where more foreign countries have English as their second national language, than it ever was before? Where are the statistics that single mothers and immigrants are the ones asking for safe spaces? I thought it was mainly college kids? "Safe spaces aren't about protecting someone from a different opinion." Then why are they set up at colleges when someone is coming to the campus to speak? People don't need a safe space from that, all they need to do is not go see the speaker as they talk. "The when the Suffregettes won, there was increasing violence against women." Where are the statistics on that? Are you sure that wasn't a result of the prohibition which was the first vote that women influenced and created the mob and lots of violence? "And with one of our most progressive presidents yet, our nation is in a xenophobic furor to elect his polar opposite." This is totally biased and subjective opinion that is not based in reality. The nation of America is not xenophobic, we have some of the most liberal migration laws on Earth. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. We have not always lived in a diverse world at all, not the way we do now. We used to live for the most part in a very segregated world where most countries did have their own ethnicities because people were so against mixing. Today, we are more mixed than we ever have been. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/) I never claimed it was perfect but the portrayal that we are equal to where we've always been is just false. We have progressed massively and that shouldn't be dismissed. I would appreciate it if you weren't so prejudicial here. Your statement that you have to be a "person of color, any LGBT, any exploited young woman, any homeless veteran" to experience an unkind world is very bigoted. White people, men and even white men experience unkindness and even racism and sexism in this country too and it's on the incline not decline, as with other groups. An Italian, white man growing up in New York in the 1970s-1980s was like growing up in a war zone. (http://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_real_new_york_gritty_scenes_of_nyc_street_life_1970) A gay man growing up in San Francisco at the same time actually grew up safer. Today, both places are significantly safer for all people, including those of color and non heterosexual orientation. Again, I didn't say it's perfect but to deny it's better than in history is wrong. You have to put things in perspective. Furthermore, why are you insinuating that I didn't grow up in an unkind world? My great-grandparents were born in Mexico and the Philippines and Poland etc. My family hasn't been here that long and I was the first generation to go to college, raised on welfare and other government financial aid by a single mother. Both of my parents grew up in gangs and often on the streets. I was evicted and homeless myself many times as a child. I was also abused by many adults around me throughout my childhood. The difference is I don't ask for a "Safe space" to be taken out just for people like me to get to not hear anything that we don't want to hear, which I think is rude and insulting, to be quite honest. Safe spaces are against the constitution. It doesn't matter about their home situation. Yes, it's horrible, I know from personal experience, but asking for public space to be set aside is ridiculous and self-centered. Support groups and counseling are set up exactly for these people and situations. Safe spaces are wherever you are with a close friend, loved one or professional. Additionally, the support groups and counseling are often designed to tailor to the traumatic experiences specifically that they face whereas safe spaces are just an amalgam of anyone who doesn't want to be bothered? There are many locations that offer free counseling, including suicide hotlines if anyone is ever feeling that overwhelmed. "But most of these places are also meant to hide them away, to pretend they don't exist.... If we don't see them, we can ignore the problem." That's a very subjective opinion. Many people who work at those places and devote all of their time and energy there would beg to differ with you. Of course that can happen to some of those people but many are actually trying to help them and don't know what else to do. It matters to me because it digresses people emotionally and makes them more sensitive. As I mentioned before, studies show it's more likely to make them worse and not better because they're not actually healing, they're the ones hiding and running away from what they don't like. It's like rewarding children for their emotional tantrums by giving them what they want, it only hurts them in the long run. Please drop the attitude that you think my life was so great and I want to ignore problems that you so prejudicially assume I know nothing about. I have experienced and witnessed many problems, many failed attempts at solutions and proven successful solutions from a very diverse range of people including different ethnicities and sexual orientations. You claim to hear other people out before judging yet you've been judging me this whole time while knowing nothing about me. Didn't you write the debate rules? You should re-read them and stop speaking for me or insulting me by assuming to know my history. I'd like to remind you that the real definition of privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people." I'd also like to remind you that "prejudiced" is thinking you know something before you have any facts, which you keep showing with me and I wish you'd stop and show me the same respect I show you. Furthermore, I've never shown any evidence to suggest that I don't care about problems that don't affect me, I just have a different method of solution than you. If you put your biases aside and your manners to the forefront, then you would see that. "Any high school teacher can tell you that some students need more emotional assistance than others, and that's just teenagers." Great. That doesn't mean safe spaces and that doesn't fix the problem. Well they need to get over that because sometimes some people are going to be insensitive and we can't make every public space smaller just to have "safe space" accommodations for people who are more emotionally sensitive than normal. They don't have to be there, they can leave. "Why is that such a bad thing?" No one said having a place to talk about traumatic things is a bad thing so I don't even know why you're asking such an irrelevant question. My point is safe spaces are harmful to those who use them and insulting to those who don't.

misanthrope86 Great article Cinders. A considered approach to the issues and helps educate people about why trigger warnings and safe spaces are important to accommodate, at least for people who are opening to learning.

Cinders I want to put this at the top, because this post is SO long, I don't want to risk a tl;dr from you, Audrey: I am sorry. I am sorry for my sharp words and tone that made you feel like your experiences weren't valued. Sincerely. Now, to the rest of the post. Why should it be easier for a single mother who is being negligent to her child by denying them a necessary father? (Widowed mothers are different.) Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. Judgmental, much? So many reasons women can be single mothers other than widowhood, and they certainly don't deserve your disdain. What about those rape survivors, who conservatives are insisting bring their ill-gotten fetus to term, and choose to keep the baby? What about mothers who were abandoned by their partners, who just up and ditched? What about divorced mothers who have deadbeat ex-husbands? What about mothers who left their abusive partners to protect their children? Or mothers who were shamed out of their community for getting pregnant at a young age? What about mothers whose husbands or partners are deployed? Or, you know, what about moms who just don't care about your antiquated views about her worth? Wow, was that a venomous remark about people you don't even know. Where are the statistics that it's harder for immigrants to learn English today, in a more globalized society where more foreign countries have English as their second national language, than it ever was before? Haha, I love this one because it's actually one of my qualifications as an ELL teacher. Studies show that even in an ideal environment, immersed in an English-only environment with eager and hard-working students, it can still take up to three years of speaking a second language before one is considered fluent, and that's for children. And no environment is entirely immersive (think of the other languages spoken at home, or in the community). Realistically, it's more like five-ten years, and again, that's for children. ELL students are given a pass their first year of English instruction on Standardized Tests, but are expected to preform at the same level of their English-first peers by year two, without any accommodations, and it is bullshit. I have seen, year after year, ELL students set up to fail by the system. Now imagine their parents, working multiple jobs, and being spit on in the process for not learning fast enough. How easy do you think it is for them to fit in their English night classes during their schedules, provide for their children, and navigate a different culture, while facing discrimination. The way we treat people who don't speak English in this country is a disgrace, and we should be ashamed of it. I lived in an immersive environment in Ethiopia for two years, and spoke Amharic and English with my colleagues and landlord, and I am still just on the beginning/intermediate level. Language learning is freaking hard, especially if your first language is in a completely different family from your second language. Were you an English Language Learner when you were younger? What was your experience with that like, if you were? Just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. Where are the statistics that single mothers and immigrants are the ones asking for safe spaces? I thought it was mainly college kids? You know that college campuses are diverse. You know it's not just privileged rich kids. Not to mention trans students, and others in the LGBT, some of which have been severely beaten or pushed to thoughts of suicide. Safe spaces don't "pop up," but are permanent fixtures, again, both in schools and online. But those who use safe spaces aren't the problem. The assholes who scarred them are. The nation of America is not xenophobic... The British and American experts and political analysts beg to differ. we have some of the most liberal migration laws on Earth. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. Also, Nope, and not true. The amount of Ethiopians who proposed marriage in exchange for a green card is not even funny. If it were about immigration, and not xenophobia, then it wouldn't be about "Mexicans" and "Muslims." It would be about all nationalities who are immigrating, legally and illegally. Because you know they aren't all Muslims and Mexicans. This is the same argument made in the 1940s to justify Japanese internment, the same argument Franklin made to justify discrimination against the Germans as a threat to American English two hundred years before that. I never claimed it was perfect but the portrayal that we are equal to where we've always been is just false. We have progressed massively and that shouldn't be dismissed. Just like you never claimed we're perfect (apologies for that), I never claimed that we were in the same place...? I mean, I've mentioned that history repeats itself, certainly. Obviously, we have made great strides and progress in many areas. But that history remains, and it has a huge impact on our present. You can't sweep four hundred years of slavery and segregation under the rug of one "I Have A Dream" speech and call it good. We have made progress, but we're not finished. We still have battles to fight, and it's a lot harder now, because those battles are often hidden. It's not OK to be outright racist or sexist these days, so we find other ways to do it. Like saying we're concerned about "immigration," for example. I'm not trying to imply anything about you, personally. I know you're a very respectable individual. I'm just saying, we need to take a closer look at the things pundits and politicians say, and ask ourselves where they come from and what their purpose is. White people, men and even white men experience unkindness and even racism and sexism in this country too and it's on the incline not decline, as with other groups. An Italian, white man growing up in New York in the 1970s-1980s was like growing up in a war zone. Privilege is intersectional, and so is prejudice. You might have privilege as a white, straight, cis male... and have been born into poverty. And you might have had to struggle and fight that stigma at school, and that's hard. Similarly, a Black cis man born to a wealthy family probably has advantages and opportunities that our hypothetical white man doesn't as well. But imagine how much harder it is for a Black lesbian born into poverty. Imagine the hurdles she'd have to jump just because she isn't the preferred color, gender, or sexuality of society. Obviously, any immigrant -- white or otherwise -- is going to have huge problems in the States, and face prejudice. But an Italian immigrant blends in better than a Japanese immigrant. Did you ever ask why we only rounded up the Japanese for the internment camps, and not the Italians or Germans? To repeat, because this is important: Privilege and prejudice are layered and intersectional. It's not a "either you have it or you don't" situation. It's more of an "Everyone has some form of privilege, and some have more than others" situation. And the converse is, "Many people experience oppression. Some experience more than others." I said to ask a POC (who could be male or female), OR an exploited woman (who could be White or otherwise), OR an LGBT (of any gender or color), OR a veteran (who could be any color, sexuality, or gender). Our identities are layered. I have privilege as a White woman that a Black man doesn't have... and he has privileges as a Man that I lack as a Woman. It's not who has it worse... It's not a contest. It's recognizing that we all have our own struggles, and our own crosses to bare. You have to put things in perspective. I am! I'm all about historical perspective, and that's what I'm saying! But just because things are "better," doesn't mean there's still not work to be done. There's still major issues with systemic racism and sexism in our established institutions. There's a reason Afghanistan has more women in their government than we do. There's a reason it's taken us fifty years after MLK to elect a Black president. Furthermore, why are you insinuating that I didn't grow up in an unkind world? My great-grandparents were born in Mexico and the Philippines and Poland etc. My family hasn't been here that long and I was the first generation to go to college, raised on welfare and other government financial aid by a single mother. So, respectful question, you were raised by a single mother, and yet moments ago you just called all single mothers negligent? Both of my parents grew up in gangs and often on the streets. I was evicted and homeless myself many times as a child. I was also abused by many adults around me throughout my childhood. The difference is I don't ask for a "Safe space" to be taken out just for people like me to get to not hear anything that we don't want to hear, which I think is rude and insulting, to be quite honest. That's awesome. I mean, that's awesome that you were able to overcome that stuff. And maybe you were able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and again, that's awesome. But it doesn't give you the right to judge everyone else who wasn't so lucky. I refer you to this section of my article: "Wait, Cinders," I hear someone saying. "I've experienced trauma, and I also think safe spaces and trigger warnings are for pussies." OK, I hear you. I'm generalizing again, and I'm sorry. But consider your trauma for a second. How did you move through it? Did you have a family to support you? Did you have money for a therapist? Did your insurance cover it? Was the law on your side? Were you able to overcome your trauma and live a mostly normal, and healthy life afterwards? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you may have had resources available to you that other people did not. And that's privilege. Just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else. Additionally -- someone else's need for help shouldn't diminish your accomplishments, or change your story. I'm sorry if you find that offensive. I can understand why it feels that way, though. Safe spaces are against the constitution. Um, no they're not...? Is this a freedom of speech thing? OK, if they arrested you for saying something, maybe, but that's not what's happening in these places. Again, most of the stuff banned at these places are specific hate speech and oppression. It's a very specific set of rules, and easy to follow. And also, if you break them, you just get kicked out. Not arrested. I've tackled already at length how safe spaces ARE the counseling available to people who cannot otherwise access it. And just like they don't have to listen to a speaker they find objectionable, you don't have to go to any of these safe spaces, so... again, why is it so upsetting to you that they exist? Is it because the idea that other people need them when you didn't is offensive to you because you feel it implies that you and people like you are weak? If you've been paying attention, I've been saying all along -- these people are survivors, strong, and awesome. And they're just looking for their tribe. You found yours, great... let them find theirs. That's a very subjective opinion. Many people who work at those places and devote all of their time and energy there would beg to differ with you. Of course that can happen to some of those people but many are actually trying to help them and don't know what else to do. I was speaking more for society. People in nursing homes, mental health facilities, and rehab centers obviously care about the people they look after, but we as a society like to forget they exist. In your next paragraph, I clearly touched a nerve. For that, I apologize. I didn't mean to imply that you were ignorant of struggles, and perhaps my words were too sharp. I just meant you can't know what everyone goes through. You don't know what everyone needs to heal. I am sincerely sorry that I made you feel like I dismissed your history or experiences. I am. But there's a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here. You don't know what these people who need safe spaces have gone through, either. It's not a competition about who had it worse. It's about being empathetic, and understanding that everyone's on a different path, everyone's fighting different battles. Again, I am sorry for being so sharp with my words. There is no excuse for that. "Why is that such a bad thing?" No one said having a place to talk about traumatic things is a bad thing so I don't even know why you're asking such an irrelevant question. My point is safe spaces are harmful to those who use them and insulting to those who don't. You contradict yourself here? My argument is that a safe space is "a place to talk about traumatic things." What studies are you talking about that say safe spaces are damaging to individuals? I am legitimately curious. I know of studies that examine group therapy, which use the safe space philosophy, and generally they have more positive results. What this might boil down to is a misunderstanding of the purpose of safe spaces or what they are, on both sides of this argument. Maybe we could explore that.

Cinders ^^Some of that is snippity, because I didn't realize I'd crossed a line until later in the post... for this, I also apologize, and may go back and edit some of my language.

audreygrace412 That's fine about the snippity, I appreciate the heads up and apology and will keep it in mind. Sorry again for the delay in response, I had a minor incident with my arm and couldn't really type so much while it was healing. (Nothing serious though.) Just so you know, I will never not respond to you or not read what you write. I think that is incredibly rude and I personally don't even understand why anyone would have a conversation who would resort to that. If you take the time to write it and share it with me then I will take the time to read and respond. I am not intimidated by long responses, they might just take me a bit longer to get back to for obvious time-consuming reasons. Thank you again for your apology though. I am sorry as well if anything I said made you feel offended or incited as that was never my intent. Now, to the rest of the post. Only as judgmental as "if you break the law/do something really wrong" then you should "pay the appropriate consequence". Choosing to have a child and neglect their right to a father/second parent purposefully when that will statistically hurt your child as well as yourself is reckless and irresponsible in my opinion. I think a little non-sympathy for such women is appropriate. If you think that is judgmental then I guess you are right in that it is as judgmental as any "bad choices = consequences" judgment. "So many reasons women can be single mothers other than widowhood and they certainly don't deserve your disdain." Well that is your subjective opinion. I am more than willing to take each mother on her own merit but I am also willing to admit the reality that most women who choose to be a single mother are usually at worst, not good people inside or at best, are too self-centered to be parents. "What about those rape survivors, who conservatives are insisting bring their ill-gotten fetus to term, and choose to keep the baby?" Firstly, I see this as a separate issue which is why I didn't mention it. I think those judges who force abortion should be disbarred. They are breaking the law and the US constitution states separation of church and state. The argument against abortion is a religious argument therefore it is wrong. Abortion should never be banned and should be a choice in all 50 states. Those women and girls are absolutely an exception as they are victims of corrupt judges and I did not think of them as I see that as a separate issue because they did not choose it for themselves (just like widows don't choose to be widows). "What about mothers who were abandoned by their partners, who just up and ditched?" I think they are irresponsible. Why are they getting pregnant and trying to have children with people they are not committed to? If you cannot commit to your partner then why would you want to create life with them and be committed to someone who is half you and half them, binding you to that person for the next 18 years at least? I don't have respect for so-called "parents" who treat having children like a lottery ticket that will just happen. I think that is reckless and irresponsible. Why is it wrong of me to not immediately respect people for being "parents" just because their procreating was successful? That's bigotry in itself. "What about divorced mothers who have deadbeat ex-husbands?" Why are they having children with deadbeats? I think they are also reckless and irresponsible and neglectful to their children for forcing their child to have that deadbeat's genes and have to rely on him for support and accountability. Just because you can procreate doesn't mean you should. Part of being a parent is choosing the right person to become parents with or do you not think mothers should be responsible at all for vetting anyone they allow to get them pregnant? "What about mothers who left their abusive partners to protect their children?" Why did they have children with someone who is abusive? Contrary to most Lifetime movies, statistics and studies show that most men who have a problem with abuse are almost always serial abusers who do not go from prince charming to the hulk overnight. I will admit that part of the problem is under-reporting by women in poverty neighborhoods who see it as too normal and common to report and that can affect the "prior domestic abuse" statistics because they often don't have a record because it wasn't recorded not because it didn't happen. If the woman is going to leave him anyways, why in the world wouldn't she do it before having his children and making all 3 parties involve suffer more? "Or mothers who were shamed out of their community for getting pregnant at a young age?" Thank goodness communities still do that! They should! Children should not be having children and if they get shamed then they will learn not to do it. Studies have shown that! New York is known as a liberal city and even New York had up ads all over the bus stops against teen pregnancy and guess what resulted? Less teenage pregnancy therefore less crime and less high school drop out rates and less drug abuse etc! "What about mothers whose husbands or partners are deployed?" Then they aren't really single mothers, their husbands are just away.... Also, sorry if I didn't make this clear but I was primarily talking about women who choose to be single mothers based on their bad choices not by circumstance like rape, war or death. "Or, you know, what about moms who just don't care about your antiquated views about her worth?" Well then she should think about whether or not her own child is born with antiquated views in their genes because that is a part of child development. If you look into child psychology, children need to be around a consistent caregiver who is constantly meeting their needs in their youth, especially in the first forming years! Single mothers who are busy working to make ends meet are often not able to give their children the consistent care and attention that they need to properly develop the *best way* they possibly can. They now become so statistically likely to end up in jail, on drugs, dropping out of high school, homeless, etc. that it's uncanny. This is why the argument against homosexual parents is ludicrous and they will point to these very statistics that I am mentioning, which is that all children statistically do best in a 2 parent home - regardless of sexual orientation and gender - rather than a single-parent home. So if any woman or so-called "mother" things that my views are antiquated then she can go look up statistics and research about child psychology, and hopefully she will to improve herself as a parent. So therefore my point is that any woman who *chooses* to be reckless and/or impulsive and have children in a single-parent situation like this are insufficient mothers who are not doing the single most important rule that every parent should live by: "Try to provide a better life for my child than I had, myself, growing up." If you *choose* to start your child behind the starting line then you are already showing that you are putting yourself first before your child, instead of putting your child first and trying to make sure that they have their *best chances* at life. Why do mothers not owe that to their children and why is it so awful of me to actually have standards for mothers? I have standards for fathers too but they don't get to control the pregnancy and society rarely even allows them to be a part of that decision. I am not trying to be presumptuous but based on your examples, I'm just curious: Do you believe that women/mothers have *any* accountability when it comes to becoming a parent whatsoever? Because the many of the mothers you mentioned became mothers in the most reckless and neglectful situations, and I fail to see how that helps the children involved?I understand you think I will offend the mothers with my opinions, but I don't care so much about the mothers as I do the children; I care about the children over the mothers. So can you tell me how my views are worse for the children and not the (what I perceive to be self-centered) mothers? "The way we treat people who don't speak English in this country is a disgrace, and we should be ashamed of it." What are you talking about here? We have US commercials in Spanish, our corporations and businesses have a Spanish line and often on-site Spanish translators. This is especially true where there is high immigrant population from Mexico, like where I live. Are you serious about being ashamed at how we treat people who don't speak English? I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Are you saying we should be ashamed to the Chinese and Hindi people who have larger populations (and translations) yet less translators/translations in America? Or are you talking about when regular American citizens get mad at employees who suddenly have a harder time speaking English as soon as you ask to speak to a manager? Those are the only situations I am familiar of that I think you could be referring to? No one said learning a second language, or even English as a second language isn't hard so I don't even know why you keep going to that? I asked you what proof there is that learning English is harder *today* than it was 30 or 50 years ago when we have more bilingual speakers, materials and language translations today than ever before? That makes no sense to me. People should be able to learn English easier today than 30 years ago. Furthermore, where are the studies that safe spaces have a high rate of non-English speakers? If they don't speak English well then why would they need a safe space if they don't much understand what is being said to them? "Just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else." Honestly, I kindly suggest that you should stop saying this because it is so rude and presumptuous. Just because I don't share your opinions or your solutions, doesn't mean I don't take it seriously or see it as a legitimate problem. You didn't answer my question yet again. Where are the studies that the safe spaces are being used more or even at a high or common rate by single mothers and/or immigrants? All evidence I've seen shows that they are majority at colleges. Otherwise all of your arguments abut single mothers and immigrants are irrelevant because there is nothing tying them to safe spaces? I think what you meant to say, from a more accurate and objective point of view was "[i]Some[/i] British and American experts and political analysts beg to differ." And they have the right to that opinion but there is no proof of "xenophobia" in America. "we have some of the most liberal migration laws on Earth. There is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration." Yes absolutely true. We are in the top 15 maybe top 10 countries on Earth when it comes to taking in immigrants and treatment of them. (http://www.immigroup.com/news/top-10-immigration-friendly-countries) (http://www.immigrationworld.com/etc/top-10-countries-where-you-can-immigrate-and-settle-easily/) I think you are mistaking "perfect" with "one of the best in the world". "If it were about immigration, and not xenophobia, then it wouldn't be about "Mexicans" and "Muslims."" Well this is just false. According to the Pew Research Center, "Mexicans make up about half of all unauthorized immigrants (49%)" (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/) So you're actually going to say it can't be about immigration if it includes a group that makes up about [i]half of all[/i] illegal immigrants in the country? Our corporations and commercials are now being transmitted in English and Spanish, not English and Chinese or Hindi or Tagalog etc. So let's be honest, when one group makes up half of all illegal immigrants in an entire country then they are bound to come up and even dominate the conversation in terms of illegal immigration. That's a result of geographical circumstance, not xenophobia. This is especially true when the other half are all from several different countries, rather than say if the entire other half was from Canada. Additionally, the majority of crime activity by illegal immigrants who get protected in sanctuary cities after committing multiple violent crimes, are statistically often of Mexican descent and/or come through the Southern border. Just go to MegansLaw.com and look up all of the cities by the Mexico-US border. They have some of the highest rates of crime. And it's not white crime on non-whites, studies show that most crime is done inter-racially. (http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/statistics.aspx?lang=ENGLISH) (http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/the-8-most-dangerous-border-towns-in-america.html) "It would be about all nationalities who are immigrating, legally and illegally. Because you know they aren't all Muslims and Mexicans." Obviously we all know that but it seems you didn't know that about half of them were actually all Mexicans. I've explained the concern towards Mexican immigrants and after all of the terrorist attacks, the *concern* towards immigrants from Muslim nations should be understandable. Obviously you cannot ban Muslims and I don't know why anyone thought that Trump was seriously going to just ban the Muslims. Clearly, the concern is about immigrants coming from nations that have a high rate of Muslim Terrorism. Since other immigrant groups are not committing great acts of terror like 9/11 or Pulse Nightclub, that should be understandable, even if you don't agree with the responses. Actually this is more accurately like the same argument that Jimmy Carter made when he blocked the Iranians from coming into the country because of the Argo situation. "Obviously, we have made great strides and progress in many areas." Then why isn't that equally a part of the conversation anymore? Why does this have to be dragged out just for an acknowledgement and affirmation? Why the obsession to lead with negative outlooks rather than positive outlooks? Victimization over Survival? "But that history remains, and it has a huge impact on our present." Yes it does, including the Civil War where we lost more casualties than any other war. We gave more American lives for the freedom of slavery than we did for "capitalism vs. communism/socialism/monarchy/etc". Why can't we hail that up and push a message of continuing in that direction of fighting most for civil justice rather than choosing to harbor on as much negativity as possible? We can't move forward if we choose to keep living in the past. There is a big difference between ignoring the past, living in the past and learning from the past. Right now we seem to be ignoring the good past, living in the bad past and not learning from any past. "You can't sweep four hundred years of slavery and segregation under the rug of one "I Have A Dream" speech and call it good." Agreed. You also can't erase millions of lives that fought on the battlefield, many of them white, for the end of slavery and segregation and pretend it never happened. The fact that you would use that statement conveys a message that belittles all of our social progress with slavery and segregation to nothing but MLK's speech, which is just very misleading. You are creating a narrative that says all white people hated all non-white people from the beginning of the country until MLK's speech. That is a gross distortion. Many of the colonists were ex-slaves, Irish people who were heavily enslaved by the British - granted not treated quite as bad as the black slaves in the South. Since many of the Northerners were ex-slaves though, plus the pacifists, they were always against slavery and never legalized it. 5 States in particular were *always* free: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Why do they not deserve recognition for standing against slavery from the beginning? Just so you know, this is part of the white side of racial politics in America. White people get upset when people pretend that "all white people" have "always been against non-whites" just like how the statement you made suggested that. This is offensive especially to all of those who lost their lives in battle to free the slaves. Is there still racial tension in America? Yes, of course but the majority of that is in the South, still! You know, the ones who fought us to keep their slaves but lost in the end and there are still some bitter about it? That group! That is the *majority* of racism left in America. That is also where homosexuals and LGBT etc. groups have the most struggle as well, the bible belt. "We have made progress, but we're not finished. We still have battles to fight, and it's a lot harder now, because those battles are often hidden." What? If you want to say we are not finished, I can respect that but to say it's harder now because the battles are hidden? How is that? Today we have less racist people and more people willing to speak out against racism, we have social media which is able to record events that actually used to be hidden from the public and we are all more socially connected now to get the word out. How is it harder to fight these battles now? It's easier. We have the technology and our biggest obstacles are corrupt politicians. "It's not OK to be outright racist or sexist these days, so we find other ways to do it." I can agree with this but this is an argument against political correctness. These people used to be limited to their comments and then everyone knew who they were. Now they just have to know how to say the right things and get deemed a good person, even if they are not inside, and people who are not racist who say the wrong things get deemed a bad person who is racist and/or insensitive. It's a corrupt system that gives bad people a crutch and good people a handicap and hinders communication for all. Many friends now don't even want to try to talk about their differences. Politics used to be common table talk. Honestly, I watch all political news outlets: ABC, CBS CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, RT America, etc. because if you do then you realize that they are all biased and all only give the facts or details that suit their own specific audience and/or agenda. My great-grandparents were born in Mexico and I live in a town that has high immigration, illegal immigration and Mexican immigration. Half of my family has Mexican roots. I promise you that I am looking at this from a most thorough perspective. My grandfather, whose mother was born in Mexico, is voting for Trump too and he says that he doesn't care what Trump says, he cares about what Trump's going to do. My grandfather is a factory worker. Whatever you may think about me, try to keep an open mind because I do not fit the stereotypes you mentioned. Firstly, too many people make this mistake so I need to address this: Color does not equate race or ethnicity. That is how the Hispanic cop in Dallas was shot by the black man who saw him as a white man because he was the same color as the "white" cops he wanted to shoot. "But imagine how much harder it is for a Black lesbian born into poverty." As opposed to what? A gay man growing up in Utah born into poverty and a Mormon family who believe homosexuality is an unforgivable sin and he will be condemned and forced to leave his community? So he may not have race working against him but if our hypothetical black lesbian born into poverty was born in San Francisco, CA then she doesn't have race working against her either. She'd even face less consequences for being lesbian as she is in a more homosexual-friendly geo-political area. Race does not account for everything and it has to be taken into perspective. What if the white man is a gay, Catholic, Italian born in South Philadelphia in poverty? His growing up is not much different than our hypothetical black lesbian born in poverty. That's why it's not about race but more about poverty and circumstance. Race used to be the easy go to before people started mixing so much and it was easy to blame things on that, primarily using skin color as a gauge. However we have learned a lot since then and progressively need to stop making things about race since that is easier and look at the harder and more deeply rooted problems. It's like watering a plant, we need to get to the roots instead of just focusing on the surface. "Obviously, any immigrant -- white or otherwise -- is going to have huge problems in the States, and face prejudice." Perhaps to an extent but this seems pretty presumptuous as well. ANY immigrant? Even the ones who come with tons of money and/or political connections? I think that's too blanketed. How do you know an Italian immigrant blends in better than a Japanese immigrant? Perhaps 50 years ago but not now. Today an Italian immigrant can come over with little money and a heavy accent, with what is perceived as "sexist" treatment in our culture because he catcalls at the women just like all the men he knows back in Italy do. The Japanese immigrant however already knows English because many Japanese already speak English as their second language even if they didn't have plans of immigration. His culture is also heavily based on respect and order, structure and efficiency so he causes no negative attention to himself. Do you still say the Italian immigrant blends in better than the Japanese immigrant? "Everyone has some form of privilege, and some have more than others" situation. And the converse is, "Many people experience oppression. Some experience more than others." That is absolutely fine until you start simplifying it to race when that is not an accurate representation. Economic status is much more prevalent. Yes, black households do experience a little more poverty than white households but you really have to break it down by economic income rather than race if you want a more accurate picture. "I said to ask a POC (who could be male or female), OR an exploited woman (who could be White or otherwise), OR an LGBT (of any gender or color), OR a veteran (who could be any color, sexuality, or gender)." I don't know why you asked me this except to imply that I must not have fallen into any of these categories which is biased and false. "I have privilege as a White woman that a Black man doesn't have... and he has privileges as a Man that I lack as a Woman. It's not who has it worse... It's not a contest. It's recognizing that we all have our own struggles, and our own crosses to bare." Well you seemed to be implying before that non-whites needed the safe spaces more, even though they are mostly run by and supported by white people. The statement that you as a white woman have privileges that a black man doesn't have, sounds like a political way of trying to say that people are different. Obviously white women get treated different than black men just as black men get treated different than black women and black women get treated different than asian children. [b]"But just because things are "better," doesn't mean there's still not work to be done." OK! If things are better then I don't see the need in safe spaces? I don't see how that progresses us when studies have shown they hurt people more than help them. It just seems like a waste of time and resources.[/b] You are not trying to say that America is more sexist against women than Afghanistan just because women here haven't chosen to elect more female officials, are you? "Afghanistan is one of the most challenging places in the world to be a woman: 85% of women have no formal education and are illiterate.... More than 50% of Afghan girls are married or engaged by 12.... Almost 60% of girls are married by 16. Women activists say up to 80 percent of marriages in poor rural areas are either forced or arranged... Most girls marry far older men — some in their 60s — whom they meet for the first time at their wedding... A lack of security from three decades of war, and the risk of kidnapping and rape, has also prompted many families to force their young daughters into marriage. Some girls are bartered into marriage to repay debt or resolve a dispute. And widespread poverty still compels many parents to get their daughters married to avoid the cost of caring for them. Older, wealthier husbands will pay a larger bride-price for a girl....." (http://www.trustineducation.org/resources/life-as-an-afghan-woman/) I hope you are not making that comparison, as that is just so wrong and misleading. I'm not saying women don't face any problems in America but to compare it to Afghanistan is ridiculous. Especially since you are talking about systemic sexism. America is one of the best places on Earth for a woman to be born as far as treatment and freedom goes. "There's a reason it's taken us fifty years after MLK to elect a Black president." Ok, why don't you tell me how many black men have run for president and which ones were more competent than their white opponents and lost solely due to racism? "So, respectful question, you were raised by a single mother, and yet moments ago you just called all single mothers negligent?" No, I did excuse widows and tried to make the point that I was primarily talking about mothers who choose to be single, because that is the objective stance. I don't pity those women for procreating in a reckless and/or selfish manner. I don't excuse it just because people I know close to me did it, I just see a better perspective from witnessing it firsthand as well as on the outside (knowing others in that situation). "But it doesn't give you the right to judge everyone else who wasn't so lucky." So what you are saying, is that actually experiencing such events firsthand, I have no right to judge for myself how I feel about these "safe spaces" or people who need or support them yet the people who do support or need them do get to judge me and tell me how I should feel about them? How is that not hypocrisy? "How did you move through it? Did you have a family to support you? Did you have money for a therapist? Did your insurance cover it? Was the law on your side? Were you able to overcome your trauma and live a mostly normal, and healthy life afterwards?" Honestly, no I didn't and that's why these are the exact things that I would much rather spend my time and resources into rather than these "safe spaces". I don't want to band-aid problems, I want to take out the thorn bush that requires band-aids, if you understand what I am trying to stay. Safe spaces are insulting to me because they are accepting of such situations and segregating people rather than uniting people and making better legislation and government decisions. "Just because it isn't a problem for you, doesn't mean it's not a problem for someone else." Again, I will say: Just because I have a different solution than you, doesn't mean I don't take it seriously or acknowledge it as a problem and it's rude to suggest so. "Additionally -- someone else's need for help shouldn't diminish your accomplishments, or change your story." It doesn't, until it starts to infringe on my rights and becomes a political manipulation tool rather than a humanitarian project. "Safe spaces are against the constitution." It's actually the opposite of freedom of speech, it's fascism because the rules are you can't say anything that isn't pre-approved. We should not pay for that with tax payer money and as long as it is being done on colleges anytime someone controversial comes to speak, it is a waste of resources and hurts the students emotionally and economically as well as hurting tax payers who disagree economically. Why should I have to pay for another's sensitive needs? "Most of the stuff banned at these places are specific hate speech and oppression. It's a very specific set of rules, and easy to follow. And also, if you break them, you just get kicked out. Not arrested." Actually, it is quite subjective since it often has to do with what people "feel" is offensive or hateful etc. and not what is objectively hateful. Offense is subjective so it's already biased towards a certain view point, one that is often political. I shouldn't be paying for that, colleges are not supposed to safe spaces or driven by a specific political party, they are supposed to be places of socratic method where *all* view points are tolerated and heard or why is it a place of higher education if they can't handle all view points? "And they're just looking for their tribe. You found yours, great... let them find theirs." I find this completely offensive. First of all, I am not looking nor have I looked for a tribe and I am not a tribal person. My family left tribes because they treated women abhorrently, making them slaves and having no rights. I am not looking for a tribe to cut myself off from the rest of civilization and that is exactly the kind of rhetoric supporting these spaces that makes me offended by them. It's segregation and we shouldn't be going backwards towards intolerance. We are supposed to be progressive, growing more tolerant and safe spaces are 100% against tolerance. "You don't know what these people who need safe spaces have gone through, either." Why do I not know when I fit all of the types you have brought up in arguments of people who need safe spaces whereas you seem to be saying you know more than I despite admitting that you have not experienced as similar conditions as you have been more privileged? This just seems more like someone from the outside trying to convince someone from the inside to believe that you know more about what these people with similar experiences to me, need more than I do? If that is what you are saying then that's fine but I'm just asking why/how is that so? No one made it a competition so I don't know why you keep saying that. Everyone does have a lot to go through and they've all done it without these harmful safe spaces. If these people are strong survivors like you say, then they don't need to be running and hiding from anything harmful, they need to be assimilating back into society. Safe spaces segregate them and make that harder. No contradiction. Safe spaces are spaces that are segregated where freedom is speech is limited which limits constructive criticism that might "feel offensive or hatefeul". "I know of studies that examine group therapy, which use the safe space philosophy, and generally they have more positive results." Exactly because group therapy and safe spaces are not the same thing, despite the few commonalities. Safe spaces fuel the need for segregation and extra regulations whereas counseling works to break down those barriers so those people can assimilate back into normal and healthy life/society. Safe spaces get manipulated to not hear anything "uncomfortable" under the label of "offensive or oppressive" because they don't like the way these things feel. You do know that part of women's rights was fighting for women to not be treated like delicate flowers anymore and get to communicate in an uncensored manner. Safe spaces are just anti-progressive. Safe spaces are also rooted in "trigger warnings", more subjectivity. "Trigger warnings are designed to help survivors avoid reminders of their trauma, thereby preventing emotional discomfort. Yet avoidance reinforces PTSD. Conversely, systematic exposure to triggers and the memories they provoke is the most effective means of overcoming the disorder." (https://psmag.com/hazards-ahead-the-problem-with-trigger-warnings-according-to-the-research-4f220f7e6c7e#.81rfc6y71) I am just offering my actual viewpoint against the safe spaces because I think you misinterpreted some of my remarks or haven't taken into account the points that I'm making as part of the "against" argument.