And? So the current group of people is white and male. So what? They're apparently making a point of discouraging any kind of discrimination. Are white men not allowed to be nondiscriminatory? For that matter, doesn't "all-inclusive" include more than just race and sex? I mean this is satire so obviously none of this actually happened, but the premise stands. What's the problem with white men being inclusive?
the joke is that if your group is homogenous, there's likely a reason non-majority groups aren't coming to it, even if you declare yourself non-discriminatory.
your ninja edit fucked me up so i edited my response
Sure, but that's not true. They may be racially homogenous because they simply live an an area that's not terribly ethnically diverse or because whatever it is they're doing happens to be more popular with one demographic than another. The later can also be said of gender. There are plenty of reasons not to be interested in something other than racism and sexism. And why are we assuming a "homogenous" group based on race and sex alone? There are much more significant differences between people than their gender or the color of their skin.
ok it's satire and you've clearly missed the joke. but if you want to get into it: the article intentionally points out that only white, cis, men attended. the punk scene is NOTORIOUSLY terrible for women, non-binary/non-gender conforming folx, and non straight people. that's not to say that punk isn't popular with that demographic. that's to say that spaces full of white cis men push others out with their behavior, so those people create their own spaces. just because you declare a space "safe" and non discriminatory, that doesn't make it so. that's what the article is lampooning. all these hypothetical dudes have said this place is now safe! but it doesn't matter because only cis white dudes showed up, broadcasting that same unsafe message.
I wish people would realize that saying something is safe doesn't make something safe. I mean, I've seriously lost count of the number of people who are adamant they're not racist who come out with something culturally insensitive and get really upset that someone politely points this out to them. Or who argue with a person of color over whether some seemingly innocuous interaction "deserves" to be part of the thousand papercuts that drives their anxiety. Or guys who are sure they don't behave in a sexist manner who get really confused and upset when a woman refuses a drink they brought to her from the bar. They promise it's perfectly safe, as though that's definitely not a thing that someone with bad intentions would do. Or the folk who think they're lgbt friendly because they believe in and vote for marriage equality who also ask so many questions about the details of lgbt people's lives because they're sooo curious and care so much that they don't realize that they're acting like they're in a zoo. I don't blame any person of color for not trusting I won't say something racist, or any lgbt person for not trusting that I won't treat them as an exhibit, or even other women for not trusting that I won't side with Mr Nice Guy. I don't blame them because I know my word cannot ever be enough.
i don't think that's a hard concept to understand but people prove over and over again that the blinders of privilege are so strong.
especially when it keeps you from critical self-examination
tbh i don't know if they taught that to us when i went to school. it took a lot of exploration on my own to realize that my narrative isn't the only narrative. you wouldn't think it's that hard but i'm still learning things all the time. i have to chase that knowledge though and never be complacent
A good friend of mine published an awesome zine for her Honors Capstone that illustrated this. Idk if I can find it online but I'll try