Why Does Talking About Creepers And Harassment Make People So Angry?
I confess: I still don't get it.
We write about things that make people angry: sometimes on purpose (u mad bro?), sometimes because the topic interests us. But few topics are as consistent in their ability to draw anger and trolling and bizarre visitors as the issue of sexual harassment and responses to it.
If I talk about my experiences training clients' employees in how to avoid sexual harassment, I draw nutters. If I talk about sites that discuss bad behavior towards women in gaming culture — great sites like Fat, Ugly, or Slutty — people get angry. Discussions of outing and vigorous more-speech remedies seem to be more controversial when the target is chosen for being a creeper rather than, say, a racist. Even the abstract subject of this post — the meta-examination of why the subject of harassment is so incendiary to some — generates some of the most vituperative comments we ever see here.
This phenomenon — disproportionate anger at discussions of the topic of harassment — seems particularly pronounced when people discuss bad behavior within the wide spectrum of what I'll call "geek culture" — science fiction, computer gaming, pen-and-paper gaming. For some time I've talked about the thoroughly creepy undercurrents in that culture. I've observed them for decades. I remember going to gaming conventions as a teen in the early 1980s and seeing how some men, seemingly freed from manners by the context, openly leered and touched made comments that should have gotten them kicked in the nuts. I vividly remember a tournament pen-and-paper game (maybe Paranoia?) in which players' comments to the one woman got increasingly ugly until she pushed her chair away and left, leaving the remaining men to complain bitterly that she was a bitch with no sense of humor.1 When people discuss this sort of behavior on forums and blogs dedicated to the culture, the responses are salted with vicious and seemingly unbalanced anger, anger that I don't see in other contexts.
Like I said, I don't get it.
I was thinking about this over the weekend because an author talked about the process of reporting harassment at a convention, and out tumbled two things: anger, and stories of women putting up all the time in this subculture with creepers. The experiences are not new; perhaps the willingness to talk about it is only emerging, as is a willingness to speak up when women are classed as chainmail-bikini-chicks and "lady writers."
I'm not saying that every accusation of sexual harassment is truthful; no class of accusations should be treated as presumptively true. I'm not saying that every perception of sexism is fair-minded or rational; no class of human grievance is uniformly trustworthy. I'm not saying that people should shut up about emerging norms about public behavior towards women if they disagree with those norms; I'm a free speech advocate, and I think people should participate in the marketplace of ideas if they are willing to pay the toll of being disagreed with. I'm not calling for adherence to dogma; we should call out dogma when it conflicts with real values like due process. What I'm doing is questioning the disproportionate and, to be blunt, disturbed anger that arises over this particular subject. I'm questioning how easily the "criticism of my good-natured kidding is tyrannical censorship" trope is brought to bear when the issue is sexism or sexual harassment. I'm questioning why the — pardon me — hysterical terms like "lynch mob" are so quickly brought to bear when this is the subject. I'm questioning why on some issues — say, race — incoherent basement-stinking fury is relegated to places like Stormfront, but when it comes to sex it's alarmingly close to the mainstream. I'm asking why is it that if I write about racism, truly nutty and racist response are fairly rare, but if I talk about sexual harassment or sexism, I can count on being classified as a "white knight" or "mangina" or "pink shirt" or homosexual or something.
I'd like to know not just because I love and respect my wife and daughters and female colleagues and friends and relatives — though they are part of my motivation. I'd like to know not just because women are half the human race, yet discussion of how they are treated is regarded in some quarters as oddly parochial and extremist. I'd like to know because I plan to keep writing about this stuff, and I'm wondering: are these freaks going to keep jumping up and down on my lawn?
- I didn't do or say anything. In my defense I was 15 and unimaginably socially awkward. But that's not really a defense, is it? I regret it. ▲
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Dinesh D'Souza's Sentence Isn't Remarkable - September 23rd, 2014
- Texas Court Makes Upskirts Mandatory, Outlaws Kittens, Hates Your Mother - September 21st, 2014
- American Spectator Surrenders To Vexatious Litigant and Domestic Terrorist Brett Kimberlin - September 20th, 2014
- A Grumble: United States Courts Website Misinforms About Free Speech - September 18th, 2014
- Follow-Up: U.C. Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks Gets Free Speech Right This Time - September 12th, 2014
David Byron (94)
Rick (49)
Dan Weber (43)
CJK Fossman (37)
Fasolt (37)
En Passant (34)
sorrykb (28)
AlphaCentauri (24)
Matthew Cline (22)
PonyAdvocate (22)
David C (21)
Devil's Advocate (19)
anne mouse (18)
Matt (18)
babaganusz (17)
Doctor X (17)
TomB (17)
You're ruining my popcorn budget, I hope you know.
Lizard,
I cleaned out my local supermarket of popcorn, even the pre-popped, flavored crap.
Also, semi-serious answer: Because a big part of geek/nerd/SF culture is "We're ever so much more open-minded and tolerant and accepting than THOSE people, who are narrow minded bigots. Why, look! I'm wearing a pentagram and I'm vegan! That proves I'm better!" And this feeds into a classic Geek Fallacy: Being tolerant means you can't call out assholes when they're assholes. "Tolerance" doesn't mean "respect", and it certainly doesn't mean "support".
It's probably closely related to why people who dedicate their lives to stories of far future technologies have one of the most astounding luddite streaks I've ever encountered… the number of "Ebooks are the death of True Literature!" spiels I've been stuck next to in consuites is astounding.
And, thirdly — conventions, etc., are probably the only place a lot of these types ever dare talk to girls at all. Telling them they have to learn HOW to do so is (to them) imposing an incredible burden on them. (I only get to play "Rockband" maybe 2-3 times a year, at friends' parties. Wanna bet I'm not going to be as good at is as people who can play every week or every day? Self-evidently, this is a flawed analogy… but the people who subconsciously make it don't perceive the flaws. It *is* unfair to expect someone to be good at a video game without practice. It is NOT unfair to expect someone to know how to talk to women like human beings, no matter how infrequently the opportunity arises. If you don't think you can… don't pick up the controller. Or settle for picking up your own controller, if you get my drift.)
Why Does Talking About Creepers And Harassment Make People So Angry?
Well, sometimes, it's because the people "talking" about "creepers" and "harassment" are actually ganging up on people who are just talking about a subject. Like your reference to the "lady writers" kerfluffle from the SFWA magazine. What the fuck else would you expect an article explicitly about early pioneering women in the SF community to be about, other than "lady writers, lady editors, lady illustrators", etc? Yes. The authors of that piece were talking about "lady writers", because the entire point of the article was to talk about how they had broken into the male-dominated field of science fiction writing.
So, I think people get angry because often times, the people getting angry think the people doing the talking are being self-righteous, overly sensitive morons.
I'll play devil's advocate here.
You have Doug Mataconis Syndrome. You go after low-hanging fruit re: social issues in order to distinguish yourself as a Tolerant, Enlightened Man of Virtue. As a politically Libertarian fellow, you are at home neither with hard right nor left. But as a man of refined tastes and heightened intellect, you'd (understandably!) rather win the plaudits of the Upper West Side set than the approving grunts of the People of Wal-Mart.
Your trolling in this regard attracts not only the fringe lunatics, but the slightly-less-fringe indignant contrarian element, who maybe sympathize with the D&D creeps or the PUA creeps, because, hey, they can't (or perhaps couldn't, in their youth) get girls, and they take some of your criticism personally.
This line of reasoning is supported by parsing your occasional writings on the so-called "PUA community." Implicitly, you suggest women are somehow victims of these gentlemen. You absolve women of their free-will, but the women's rights crowd doesn't mind it in this instance, because you're only denying them credit for their bad decisions. Failure is an orphan, as we know.
All of this is simply empty kabuki designed to elicit the right reactions from the Right People. No serious intellectual discussion is going to come from "Is it OK for BO-reeking D&D nerds to tell strange women about their rape fantasies?" As a piece of signaling, though, it lets the world know that you are a Thoughtful and Sensitive Man.
In short, you trollin'. And as one who has bitten the hook, I tip my cap.
I think a lot of this stereotype of the "geek" culture has a basis in fact. There tends to be a lot of men and teens who lack social skills. The "asperger's" association with low emotional, high rational intelligence and the "geek" association with the same isn't purely coincidental. Lacking social and interpersonal skills is a very frustrating situation. The failure to adequately socialize with the opposite sex leaves them with the idea that the behavior of their subculture (consisting of like stunted individuals) is "normal". This leaves many hopeless in their attempt to interact in a socially appropriate manner. Pointing out these inadequacies is deeply hurtful in a way that those who are well socialized can never understand. Since they are doing the best they can (and failing miserably), they lash out also in a socially inappropriate manner when criticized.
How to avoid sexual harassment
Oh my God, I just read through that 2009 thread with Supremacy Claus. Now I wish I'd argued on my Torts final that the reasonable person standard violates the Establishment Clause and procedural due process.
I've been around a lot of sexist guys, and I think the root of the issue – what makes this subject so much more controversial than racism or homophobia or any other form of discrimination – is desire.
Look at it this way:
A racist doesn't want to sleep with blacks, asians, whoever.
An anti-Semite doesn't want to sleep with Jews.
A homophobe doesn't want to sleep with gays.
But a sexist? He wants to sleep with women.
Yet look at these guys – they're clearly not the type of men that women want to sleep with, and that makes them angry. Their carnal instinct is that they're being deprived of a right, that these "sluts" are parading around, sleeping with everybody else, but not giving them the one thing they desire so powerfully.
And that generates a lot of anger, anger that an altered state of mind would see as perfectly righteous. Most of these sexists are guys who never quite figured out how to talk to girls. So they start blaming that fact on the girls. They start blaming that fact on a society that gives girls enough power to say "no". They start blaming that fact on people like you, Ken, who "just don't get it", because – guess what – you know how to talk to girls.
This is all a gross oversimplification, but I stand by my core theory – what makes this issue different than other forms of discrimination is desire.
@perlhaqr:
Sure, you could parse that particular controversy that way. I'm not saying that the only possible interpretation of the "lady writers" SFWA incident is that the authors in question are big awful sexists. I'm saying that in this culture, when the issue is sexism, people seem disproportionately likely to break out "criticism is censorship" tropes that don't get broken out as much over other skirmishes about politics and nomenclature. You edge towards it with "ganging up on." If all the comments here disagree with my premise, am I being ganged up on?
As InnocentBystander alludes to, you're taking a subculture with little social graces, and attacking them for having little social grace.
These groups, by and large, were formed of and by people without social grace. You're effectively demanding they stop participating in a social group they helped form for people who couldn't fit in with normal society – because they don't fit in with normal society.
It's heartening to see this addressed and discussed outside of specifically feminist or progressive circles. This blog continues to be one of the best things on the internet.
Kaspar nails it, really.
To take a random, stream of consciousness stab at answering your question about why the difference in response to race vs gender issues, I'd say it's because there's just a much greater variance in the community of potential victims as to what does and does not constitute harassment… i.e. within the female demographic, there's a very wide variety of opinions/assumptions about where the "line" is – at one end of the spectrum there's tomboyish "just one of the guys" types who WANT to hear, and participate in, locker-room style talk along with the guys, and at then at the other end of the spectrum there's radfems who think that "all sex is rape" etc, and of course there's everything in between. Different women, at different points on this spectrum, can have wildly different opinions about what does and doesn't constitute harassment.
With race, on the other hand, there's no such spectrum, or at least a dramatically narrower spectrum. For instance, I don't think there are any black people who are OK with white people using the n-word. This means there's much less confusion about where the lines are drawn, so the only people who end up crossing them are racist assholes who are TRYING to cross the line, whereas with gender it can get much more confusing, as men can end up crossing the line due to simple confusion about where exactly the line is, rather than intentional assholery.
Isn't this a form of projection, akin to "mangina" and "white knight" and the like? You're assuming you know my motives based on your ordering of the universe. Yet you have read here long enough to know perfectly well that one of my favorite themes is making fun of people who over-react to criticism and mistake it for censorship or tyranny.
It's not clear to me how discussing obnoxious behavior is absolving its targets of agency. I don't advocate speech-restrictive laws limiting PUAs from being PUSs. I advocate mocking and criticizing them.
Perhaps not. But there are plenty of people who will argue, with a straight face, that (1) I am part of a fascist speech-suppressive movement that will Destroy America, (2) that the evil wimmenz wants to take their talks away, (3) that criticism and ridicule are equivalent to official censorship, (4) that extrajudicial racist murder is an apt comparison to being criticized for creeping on strangers, and so on.
I'm not sure I'd characterize Theodore Beale as "alarmingly close to the mainstream", but his ranting on this and other subjects makes me wonder just how someone sharing my natal year could be so obviously born at least one millennium later than his personality fits…
That said, is it okay if I get the popcorn ready?
@Orphan:
I understand this argument. But I'm not sure I agree.
First, my credentials: I am a socially awkward unattractive person who has always had trouble speaking with strangers, particularly women.
But I don't think that means it is awful to ask me to refrain from, for instance, groping people or staring at their chests.
Perhaps the problem is, in part, one of communication. When you read the links above – the stories from women who experience harassment — most of what they talk about is (to me) very clearly over the line, not merely a matter of "I have difficulty figuring out how to act." But perhaps some people are getting a different message about interacting at all.
@kaspaer – I can't believe I hadn't thought of it that way before.
@kevin – I agree, that's part of the issue too.
Another issue I'm glad to see addressed here, where folks actually use intellect and rationality.
You live and speak in a culture that has, in recent decades, increasingly had its patriarchy challenged. You should expect tantrums, shouting, fighting, name-calling, and fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-pretending-I-can't-hear-your-rational-observations.
You should expect pleas based on free speech overruling the right to complain or disagree, dissent being equated with censorship, and accusations that people are being "shut down" by political correctness.
There will be some drivel about people just wanting to "have fun", that women and women-allying men are "no fun anymore" and that no one can "take a joke". Bonus points for free speech pleas as relating to jokes.
Most of all, despite their claims to be dedicated to free speech, the opposition will try to batter and harangue you in an attempt to make you stop speaking out of pure exhaustion and frustration. If it helps, if you were a woman (or LGBTQ or any type of identity which by its very existence conflicts with the default assumptions of machismo-ridden masculine-dominant identity), you would be experiencing ten times the abuse, and you would have already been experiencing that abuse for your entire life previous, so you would already be very tired.
This culture actively makes it difficult to defend women. This is something that will not change for awhile. So yes, expect rage, expect yelling, expect threats and moments of outright befuddling oddball weirdness in the name of defending a type of masculinity that has become outdate for quite awhile, but doesn't want to die. And thank you for speaking up despite it all.
A comment in yet another discussion of this same theme pointed out that the "poor social skills" excuse is not an explanation if the same people are aware enough not to make similar comments to (or take similar actions against) female cops, reporters, receptionists in busy public buildings, etc.
There's a huge difference between "not knowing it's wrong" and "knowing you can get away with it".
Kaspar definitely puts a finger on some of it, but not all. There are plenty of men with wives and girlfriends who are also fiercely objecting to posts like this one.
When an article is published that objects to racism or anti-semitism — or whatever -ism other than sexism — the readers aren't particularly interested in defending it (at least not publicly). But sexism steps on a privilege they're using every day, and do not consider a "privilege". It's painful to confront yourself with the fact that you're treating half of the human race poorly, so it's natural to lash out at the messenger.
Oh Paranoia. Ken, I am not surprised that you played that one (as did I). The main problem was, of course, that the best jokes were for the GM. Unless you were the GM.
We live in US for about 2 decades, and talking about these topics consistently make us (both husband and wife) bored. Not angry. Bored. Sorry for non-contribution to the discussion.
Because guys are just as cowardly, venal, and insecure as any of the other options out there.
@Orphan: By framing the issue as "the social group consists of nerdy guys who can't talk to girls, and it's not fair to ask them to learn", you basically say "the girls aren't part of the social group" — which sort of fits the definition of bigoted/exclusionary behavior.
Women in F/SF fandom aren't outsiders telling the fandom how to act. They are PART of the fandom, and have as much say in the consensus rules for social behavior as anyone else. This issue is getting attention precisely because of the attitude that some fans are more equal than others, that some active participants in a subculture have no right or standing to comment on the very subculture they're a part of.
Of course, there's a tiny handful of people who will seek controversy so that they can try to ride the outrage for their own aggrandizement, or run pell-mell into a hornet's nest and scream "Waaah! I've been stung!" — but they're safely and easily ignored, and trying to make the entire issue out to be just a few outsider busybodies clucking their teeth is not a valid or useful argument.
Ken –
There are three components to it. I'm not sure if you grew up being called "creepy" because you're bad at social interaction (I knew a guy in high school who was about 4' tall who got called creepy just for -talking- to girls, not even doing badly at it – "creepy" is really just an offensive and sexist epithet in many people's eyes), but many of these guys have, and these are -literally- the only social groups they're accepted in. Many of them have tried and failed to get better, so to them, the message you're sending is indeed "Get out."
Second, there's a strong double standard. Nobody complained or would act against the girl who followed one of the guys from my CS program around talking about sex and showing him furry rape cartoons. You don't hear about the girls doing the same kind of thing; it's just not talked about. The girls in these groups really are just as defective as the boys, or shall I say -were-, which brings me to the third component –
Nerd culture is being overrun by normal people, it's been entering the mainstream steadily but surely for years. It's hard for many of them not to get resentful of the fact that their safe havens aren't safe anymore, and that they are in fact being kicked out.
Why does it make people angry?
Because it is objectifying to both men and women the way it is usually discussed.
Men are treated as mysogynist assholes, and women are treated as thin-skinned whiners.
Perhaps the difference with sexism is that, unlike race, the differences between the sexes are basically present in all populations across all cultures and thus seem more comfortable to certain people. Perhaps it is due to the fact that, unlike with racial prejudice, there actually are true, scientifically-accepted differences between the sexes (not that it justifies anything). Perhaps it is simply that the world is full of people who are deeply frustrated sexually, or harbor emotional scars inflicted by some past member of the opposite sex.
I happen to like the abundance of sexual frustration theory. It certainly isn't helped by our culture's strange, prudish taboos on human sexuality. Especially since they somehow exist side-by-side with constant exposure to titillation and violence in our media.
Note: I realize now that there is some other fella that goes by the name "that anonymous coward". I'm not trying to troll him. I took my name from Slashdot.
My popcorn stock had declined without Prenda news, Lizard.
Not Claude Akins wrote:
WTF NCA?!!? [deep breath] I am trying to be polite, here. … Do you mean to say that a woman who was harassed at a convention is at fault for failing to exercise her free will to… what? not attend? Because it certainly sounds like that's what you mean. It sounds like you're saying that this sort of behavior just comes with the territory, and people should just "put up and shut up" because that's how it's always been and they should just be thankful that they're even *allowed* to be there. …
Count me as part of the women's rights crowd (aka the human rights crowd) for calling that attitude complete bullshit. Ken's welcome in that crowd too, pink shirt or not.
Lizard –
If a group of men don't want women to join them, do women really have the right to force it?
You're wrong, as Ken is wrong, in making it a men-women thing; defective people exist on both sides, we just overlook it when it's women being defective. But even if you were correct, is that really a position worth having? Is it really -wrong- for men who are unable to interact with women to form a social group free of women so that they can feel human?
Well, we've already had "patriarchy" and "privilege" mentioned. Now all I need is for someone to say "rape culture" I'll be close to a bingo!
People will keep jumping up and down on your lawn.
I also have to say though that the reaction to allegations of sexism in geek culture is not that different to reactions to broadly based accusations of racism. There is plenty of data and strong arguments pointing to the conclusion that our current society is still institutionally racist. Black people are still being shown fewer homes than white people with an equivalent background (but are actually being served, a big improvement). People with "black sounding" names getting fewer callbacks for interviews. Black people get significantly harsher sentences than white people for the same crime and so on and so forth. However the argument that our society is indeed still racist and that many of us help perpetuate this through our talk and action, generally without really intending to, gets huge pushback.
Anyway, moving back on topic. A previous comment about "locker room talk" to me sheds some important light on the situation. It isn't an issue limited to geek culture it is an issue tied to what used to be traditionally male social circles. I'm pretty sure you'd see the same kind of talk and behavior in fraternities, sports teams and the likes. The reason why the clash of cultures has become marked in gaming rather than these other areas as it's the only one where a significant female presence has built up.
In short, I don't think that it can be laid down to the fact that geeks are uniquely socially maladjusted. It has more to do with what attitudes are perceived as generally macho and how these become parts of communities where women are excluded.
Speaking as one of the participants in the "how to report harassment" thread Ken mentions above, I will second his remarks but from a different point of view.
The 'convention security' folks these things would be reported to? That would be me. I work as security at various genre conventions every year, at least two of which are pretty damned big. There are always a few harassment complaints at each of these, and if they seem credible, it's my job to speak with the accused. This is always a delicate situation, and I approach each instance with full knowledge that I have only one side of the story and that I am not a policeman, lawyer or judge.
I don't keep easily quantifiable reports, but IMHO a very significant percentage of the time the accused instantly becomes angry and defiant. Common responses include "I was just being friendly," " can't take a joke," "how dare you/he/she accuse me?" and so forth.
This behavior is very different from the responses in other security incidents. Without going into the details on what those responses are (tho they do often include anger), the critical difference is the immediate blame of the other for perceiving the actions as harassment. Sometimes there is denial of the specifics, and sometimes a very different perception as to what was said or done, but the anger is immediate and focused on the reporter (yes, there is often anger at me as well, but that's not different from any other incident).
Some of the comments above are correct, eg, that harassment is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. What I see as significantly different is that a significant percentage of the accused and the accuseds supporters immediately put the entire onus of the misunderstanding on the reporting person, and do so with great vehemence. An angry "If he was offended, that's his problem" is far too common a response; far more frequent than any other type of perception/reality situation.
As an example of a different situation, we work a number of conventions where people attempt to get by without getting a room. When I suggest that a the person 'resting' that laying down on the couch with eyes closed is seen as 'sleeping' by the hotel, they almost never go off on an angry rant about my or the hotel's misperceptions. When I suggest sitting up and having eyes open to avoid problems, they usually take that with good grace. I've never once had someone state that it's the hotels problem for misunderstanding what he was doing.
But man, if you make a suggestion to an accused about modifying his behavior with that particular person about perceived harassment, more often than not it's met with immediate anger and blaming the accuser.
Yeah, Ken's right. The reaction is distinctly different. I saw it in the thread he mentions, and I see it regularly in the actual incidents.
Sorry, "suggest that a the person" should be "suggest to the person."
Sex is the #1, primal, biological, evolutionary, prime directive in the male of the species. It's the just about strongest instinct men feel (aside from "don't get killed," which most men with time to kill on the Internet spend a lot less time worrying about than men did back in cave-man days), and one of the most primitive. As far as biology is concerned, sex is more important than eating or drinking, more important than sleeping, and certainly a hell of a lot more important than thinking that guy over there with the different skin color or religion is inferior to you.
As a result, thinking about sex causes strong, irrational, primal emotions in men.
I like to think that most men, by the time they are adults, understand that part of what it means to live as a civilized person in a civilized society is to control one's strong, irrational, primitive emotions. Most men know that even if their inner cave man is telling them to walk up to the woman in spandex on the other side of the convention hall and give her a good squeeze, that's not something it's OK for them to do.
But most is not all. There will always be some percentage of man who can't or won't keep it under control. And when you say something that makes those men feel threatened, and the thing they're being threatened about is sex, they react in an irrational, primal way.
(I'm reposting this with a word deleted which I think caused the comment to be put into the moderation queue instead of posted. Go figure.)
A combination of effects, I think. My feeling on geek culture especially is that:
1) It is a culture largely formed and defined by males.
2) It is this way because women have traditionally rejected it *and the men involved in it.*
3) None of those males particularly wanted to be rejected.
This isn't a males only board room or golf club or even tree house.. This where all of the nerds went to entertain themselves while all of their classmates were getting laid. And now the girls that rejected them are showing an interest in their hobby… but not in the boys themselves. They are, in fact, telling them that the way they act in their little reject corner is inappropriate and should be changed to match how the girls think they should act.
Most people are resistant to this kind of thing. Heck, you see it in feminist boards if you go try to hang out there as a man who disagrees with how they conduct themselves in it (call someone out for using the word "mansplaining" and watch the sparks fly).
Now, pile on top of that the fact that the guys do not want to be rejected – they want to be liked by these girls, but fail at it for various social reasons… and so the girl is dominant, and they are losers. So they fall back on attack to reassert dominance.
I think that's what brings out the real crazy haters, anyway.
I think there's plenty of *other* reasons these topics attract millions of non-crazy arguments, mostly centering around the availability of extremists on both sides combined with the lack of real social consensus on where the lines defining the sides even are.
@SteveSimmons I am curious if this is a universal reaction to being seen as "offensive." Being called offensive almost consistently means "you should agree with my viewpoint on what is correct behavior, and be ostracized if you do not." That's a pretty big power grab over someone, without a real counter other than appeals to a consensus view of what other people consider to be offensive.
This is entirely independent of whether the person was offensive or how they were being offensive.
Well, two things make people angry:
One: actual harassment is rather rare, and offense is usually deliberately taken way beyond what is reasonable (for example, the 'dongle joke' at Pycon).
Two: people who take offense (like you for example) tend to want to smear the entire community for the supposed actions of a few and declare everyone guilty.
Add to that your fervor (which you amply displayed in your overly emotional post) and it's easy to see that most people don't have time for that kind of (actual) harassment by you, and react angrily.
And what do female geeks think? We'd like you go and rescue someone else pls, because your 'help' is making men afraid of our presence, in case they say or do something which could be (somehow) construed as harassment and make their life hell and might cost them their livelihood.
In other words, your knightly actions and quest for public sainthood are resulting in geeky women being turned into pariahs that everyone has actual reason to be afraid of.
It'll be a lot easier to discuss things rationally when we can:
1. Define "harassment" in such a way as to ensure that a person can know with a reasonable degree of certainty, in advance of engaging in any given behavior, whether or not that behavior would constitute harassment.
2. Get everyone to agree that any behavior which is "harassment" _is harassment_, regardless of the subjective opinions of the parties involved, and likewise any behavior which is "not harassment" remains not harassment, regardless of the opinions of the parties.
Good luck with either of those.
(It would also be nice, of course, to have a consistent definition of what sort of response to opinions with which one disagrees is permissible, and what sort isn't. Clearly violence is inappropriate, as is prison. Just as clearly, it's totally fine to deny such persons access to a forum which they do not themselves own, such as — hypothetically — the Popehat.com comment threads. But how about the launching of mass campaigns to cost a person his or her employment? How about getting them blacklisted from their entire profession? Or, for that matter, how about banning them from participating in a forum belonging to an association in which they are dues-paying members, and thus at least arguably co-owners?)
I think I've cited it before, but I can't remember it now, but geeks have frequently been The Excludee, and hate being The Excludor for kicking someone out. This is often self-destructive to the community but it's real.
Moreover, geeks can easily imagine themselves in the creeper's shoes. It's not harassment if it is welcomed, and attractive people can get away with more stuff that normal people cannot, and normal people can get away with stuff the socially awkward cannot. They want to see the socially awkward shmoe get lucky.
Lizard's last paragraph in his 10:30am comment is probably accurate, too.
@Orphan There's nothing wrong with a group of men who want to hang out with other men to do that.
But that's not what we're talking about here, and claiming that it is, is a big, huge, bright red herring.
Go to the folks who run any Con and ask them, "Is this a men-only event?" Go to the vast majority of the men attending the Con and ask them, "Is this a men-only event?" You will get the same answer in both cases: no, no, a hundred times no.
Even most of the men who behave boorishly toward women at Cons aren't going to tell you they don't want the women there, since they're just as eager as anybody for the chance to score with them.
There may be a small, small minority of men at these Cons who miss the days when there were nearly no women active in geekdom and would rather that were still the case. To suggest that those men have the right and authority to define the social mores for the entire group is asinine.
And to suggest that it's the women's fault they're being harassed because they shouldn't have come to the Cons / involved themselves with the group in the first place is not only asinine, it's offensively stupid and sexist.
Orphan wrote:
I thought Lizard made it fairly clear, but I'll explain again. No one's forcing their way into your home. A con is a COMMUNITY place. The fact that you see this as an intrusion by women into the male community is a key part of this problem. Someone joked about the term "privilege" being used in this thread, but isn't this exactly what we're seeing? Some members of a privileged group not used to the status quo being challenged?
I don't buy into the sort of Geek/Con Cultural Relativism argument that says that sexism is a key part of geekdom and should be tolerated. Women are not outsiders in the sci-fi/geek/comic/whatever culture, we are a PART of the culture.
P.S. Now I'm angry too. Thanks a lot, Ken. ;-P
One more thing (sorry)
Orphan:
Someone *should* have acted about that. Reported it to the Dean, the school, someone, because YES, that is harassment.
@Irk: At least in my experience, free speech is rarely cited as justification for what was said. That could be because we rarely take action on remarks unless a complaint comes via a person to whom the remark was specifically directed.
@Hypozeuxis: Poor social skills are often the cause of offensive remarks. But in my experience most people (read: geeks) with poor social skills recognize that and are attentive to suggestions for improvement. Provided, of course, that they are couched in the right manner.
@Orphan, in re your second point on double standard: I tell you from real-world experience that we get complaints from both women and men about both women and men. Yes, men offending women is more frequent. But it's not simply a double standard. It comes from and to pretty much every possible angle. It's just more frequent for men to give offense to women, IMHO due to our legacy patriarchal culture.
And in re your third point, some part of that is nerds in nerd culture actually learning from mistakes.
@Daniel wrote:
This is often true about the discussions of the issue in general, but when it comes to handling complaints anyone who treats men as mysogynists or women as whiners is doing it wrong. And Ken is talking about the discussions, so I think he's got the right of it here.
@sorrykb They should have, but they didn't, because female privilege.
More seriously, what really drives the issue isn't the speech, but the power behind the speech. A woman is afraid of a guy telling her his rape fantasies because she believes he has the power to follow through on them. A man may find a woman telling him her rape fantasies weird, but woman-on-male rape is so against popular culture, and more unlikely physically, so he didn't feel threatened enough to report it.
Most sexism is casual, thoughtless sexism. Most of it is so ingrained in our culture (all culture, not just geek culture) that people don't even see it as being sexist. Imagine if someone walked up to you and said that shaving was insensitive, it makes bearded people feel excluded. You'd think that person was a proper nutter, and you'd probably try to ignore them. If they refused to leave you alone though, pushing their bearded agenda in your face every time you walk down the street or open a magazine, you'd get frustrated. You might even get angry.
For the guys who defend sexism, that's what it feels like. They are literally brainwashed into thinking their behavior is just normal, a lifestyle choice or a personal grooming choice like shaving. The issue of sexism does not compare to the notional issue of "shaving", but the reaction to it does. These guys are literally so incapable of relating to the female experience that they don't even recognize their own inability to relate to it. They really do believe that their behavior reflects some kind of natural order, and that anyone who fights it is fighting against their own (our own) nature.
And even though not a single one of them could put it into those words, even though not a single one of them would willingly admit to that if it were put to them, that's exactly what it is. Most sexism is blind. Most sexism is casual, natural and thoughtless. If any of them actually stopped to think, rather than instinctively react, they'd instantly be ashamed. But people have an incredible capacity for rage when introspection would otherwise cause them to change.
People are amazingly adept at fighting personal growth and improvement if it means changing their own sense of who they are. We fight to the death to preserve our sense of identity, and for some people, thoughtfulness is the greatest threat to their sense of self. Dogma isn't always something we declare in speeches or write in lengthy declarations. Sometimes, dogma is just our fear of being someone other than who we think we already are.
@Orphan "…Second, there's a strong double standard. Nobody complained or would act against the girl who followed one of the guys from my CS program around talking about sex and showing him furry rape cartoons. You don't hear about the girls doing the same kind of thing; it's just not talked about. The girls in these groups really are just as defective as the boys…"
My first reaction, having both been Con security AND having interposed myself on my own initiative in a few situations like that (i.e.: when an overly aggressive female was terrorizing a non-social male) is "bullshit".
Having said that, what you cite is a problem, and it it should get reported same-same.
The trick is, of course, that's is a drop of water in a raging -ing river compared to the flip side of the equation (To Be Blunt: men harass women a HELL of a lot more at cons than vice versa.)
What I find interesting is how often men getting harassed or touting double-standards as if we're supposed to leave the men alone. I say crack down on it all.
As far as the comment about "Normal People" I will simply quote:
"'Weird' is a relative, not an absolute" – Baron Frank-N-Furter
Otherwise, I would just have to say "bullshit" again.
I see some discussion of the effect of desire and how a lot of the guys at these sorts of things aren't as familiar with women as guys in other subcultures (climbing, or something?). For me, it comes down to a hybrid of these two things.
I prettymuch only date within the gamer subculture. I'm not trying to criticize geeky guys as being bad with women. I love geeky/scifi nerds because I am one, and I like dating people who share my interests. That said, on average, I'm the first or second girlfriend a lot of my partners have. I don't really get that – I only date people who I think are amazing and attractive, so I'm not sure why I'm one of the only people who's noticed how awesome they are – but it seems to be a trend. I've dated a couple of people who don't read a lot of scifi or game, and they've been a lot more experienced with women.
I think part of the reaction from gamer-guys comes from not having a lot of women respond positively to them because honestly, most women don't share their interests. It's just hard to have a conversation with people with whom they have nothing in common. Then, at cons or other events where the women there DO share their interests, it's more frustrating to get a bad reaction. These are the women that DO share their interests. These are the women that SHOULD like them. The average woman on the street who doesn't know what a "FPS" or "RTS" or D10 is, it makes a lot of sense that she doesn't like a guy who spends a significant portion of his free time doing something she has no interest in. It's kindof like how I think guys who spend a lot of their free time out dancing or painting are boring. They're nice people, but I just don't have anything to say to them. I also don't care when these people reject me. There's no reason we should click. When a guy who shares my interests rejects me, though, I feel terrible. I don't call him gay or a misogynist or something, but I feel angry, hurt, and confused – he should like me, we have so much we could talk about! I think it's the same way for guys at cons – they get why the girl who's into painting and salsa dancing doesn't really feel like dating them, but it doesn't really make any sense when the girl who's a gold starcraft player and also just loved the last novel by John Scalzi doesn't want to hang out. That's the girl they should have a good shot with, and it feels a lot worse when she's not interested.
Again, I'm not saying nerdboys are bad with women, but there are a lot fewer women who share their interests than with the guy who likes more mainstream activities. So when the salsa dancing girl rejects the salsa dancing guy, he's probably not going to yell about it because there are another dozen salsa dancer girls. But there aren't that many gamer girls, so each chance has a much higher value and resultantly a higher level of disappointment when it doesn't pan out.
@lelnet Defining what constitutes harassing behavior is entirely beside the point of the question Ken asked. He asked why people react with such vehemence to discussions of this sort. That's almost entirely independent of whether the people engaging in said discussions agree on what does and doesn't constitute harassment.
Having said that, in my opinion, claiming that the problem is that we don't agree on what harassment is just one small step away from blaming the victims of said harassment. Sure, there may be some grey areas. Sure, there may be instance in which a woman gives mixed signals, or the man at the receiving end of those signals is too clueless to read them properly. But I think Ken made it quite clear cases like that are not what he's talking about.
Example: Touching the breasts or butt of a woman you don't know may be OK at a kink party or if you've just handed her a couple C-notes for the privilege. Otherwise, there's no ambiguity about it: you're a creep, and what you've just done is not ok. There's no question about the fact that this kind of thing happens at Cons. It does happen, and ignoring it so we can pretend we're all just arguing about what "harassment" really means is foolish.
Example 2: If you proposition a woman at a Con and she turns you down, once, that's probably not harassment. But if you keep following her around the Con, propositioning her repeatedly for the entire weekend, there's no ambiguity there: you're harassing her, and you're being a creep, and it's not ok.
@Evelyn:
This is an empirical assertion. What is the support for it? In my post, I linked to numerous people describing experiences of what they saw as harassment. I thought that perception, based on their descriptions, was not unreasonable, and in some cases clearly right. Shouldn't, by your assertion, there be a whole lot of complaints out there describing conduct that clearly isn't harassment?
I missed the part where I declared everyone guilty. (Note, by the way, the use of language: "declare everyone guilty" suggests some sort of official oppression or proceeding or consequence, when what is actually being discussed is people discussing their own views in the marketplace of ideas. This is typical, and on the spectrum with "lynch mob," etc.)
I have said that the community has issues, which I believe is correct.
To be fair to me, I saw a gif of a dog cuddling a kitten this morning on Reddit and I'm still a little verklempt.
Note, again, exactly the sort of rhetoric I am talking about. Writing about my own views on my own blog, which no one is obligated to visit, is somehow "(actual) harassment", akin to groping someone's ass or asking a stranger her cup size or something. Because the right not to have your views or conduct criticized by anyone anywhere is the equivalent of the right not to be groped.
Do you speak for all female geeks? That's impressive. What's the election like? Is it on YouTube?
Also: let me assume for the sake of argument that you are a female geek, as you suggest. [I don't think that makes your pronouncements about female geekery unsustainable, but that's neither here nor there.]
Do you genuinely crave the society of men who are afraid of you because they've been told not to harass women?
I think Lizard is spot on with the Geek Fallacy explanation. It's an attitude that "Hey, we're geeks/nerds and are accepting of people with differences and not like those jerky, bullying jocks/frat boys. We can't possibly be treating people badly because we are the victims of being treated badly." And so there is a lot of defensiveness when those folks are called out on treating other people badly.
Kasper, I disagree with your statement that racists don't want to sleep with racial minorities. There are a lot of men who have weird, racist fetishes about Asian women who want to sleep with those Asian women. Frequently, those fetishes are accompanied by outright racist attitudes toward Asian men. There's a Tumblr page, Creepy White Guys, that shows examples of this sort of thing happening on OK Cupid.
Mike, I wholeheartedly disagree with your premise that women are newly coming to be part of the nerd community. We have always been part of it, though our presence has frequently been elided. I grew up a nerd (I'm approaching 40), and most of my nerd friends were girls/women. However, in our groups, we mainly hung out with each other and didn't spend time with nerd guys for reasons like what Ken describes at the convention: Being treated poorly by guy nerds. And similar instances of rooms going quiet and our breasts being stared out when we walked in, of being followed when we said to please leave us alone, of having furry rape pictures with the female rape victim crying shown to us by the artist and being asked to comment on the artistic quality of the drawing, and more recently of being called Fake Nerd Girls. Who wants to be around that sort of behavior? Not me and my female nerd friends. A lot of other women stayed part of those male groups and went along to get along, but they were also always there. This is our community, too, not a male-members-only space like frats or football teams or the priesthood. So, we have been here. Always. We are not new. We are not invading "your" space. Recently, some women have started speaking out, loudly. And an avalanche of women speaking out has followed, but the situations being described? Also not new.
Orphan, your comment about no one complaining about women following men around but complaining about men following women around? I think you're overlooking, intentionally or accidentally, the different power and danger dynamic there. As someone much wiser than me has said, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." Those are perhaps ultimate, not immediate fears, but there's a reason for the different levels of reaction to similar behaviors depending on the genders of the harasser vs the harassed.
Ken, yes, I think people will continue to jump on your lawn. But thank you for talking about this.
@sorrykb I believe I have failed to communicate my point to you.
@chris – How many points for heteronormative?
@Ken White – Well, I retract half my argument, anyway. Not sure which half.
Trying to grope my way back to the main thrust, here: "Sexism" as an issue is generally owned by the hard-left Marxist theorist types. I think Chris alludes to this in his bon mot above (and please forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, Chris). I take a negative-liberty approach to this sort of thing, and am quite distrustful of the left side of the aisle, even if we do agree on substance that non-consensual groping is not a good thing. Which is my way of saying that disagreeing with you might be a senseless emotional reaction on my part.
Beyond that: What Orphan said. And also, this:
First they came for the reeking misogynist neckbeards,
but I did not speak up, for I had showered and shaved that week.
Then they came for the Warhammer players,
but I did not speak, for I did not partake of table-top gaming.
Then they came for the Magic players,
but I said nothing, because srsly, what a money-sink.
And when they came for the moderately-socially-skilled closet nerd,
there was no one left to speak for me.
"Then, at cons or other events where the women there DO share their interests, it's more frustrating to get a bad reaction."
Being frustrated when someone you're interested in doesn't return that desire is part of the human condition. People need to get used to it, and mostly they do.
Being angry when the person who doesn't return your desire, instead of simply saying "no" as civilized people do, tries to get you fired from your job, blacklisted from your profession, and/or forcibly ejected from an event you've already paid a substantial amount of your own money to attend, is also part of the human condition. People need to get used to that, too, but a lot of otherwise very intelligent and perceptive ones go online and act as if anger is an unreasonable response to this sort of situation.
Oh Dear God….
@Orphan: "If a group of men don't want women to join them, do women really have the right to force it?"
So…let…me…see…if…I…have…this…straight…
"Women are forcing themselves into a group, so we sexually harass them with our attraction to them?" I ask because…that's kinda what it reads like.
What's next? "Sexism is part of the Cultural Heritage of Western Culture so we need to act to preserve it?" A "Society for Creative Misogyny" mayhaps?
Seriously, if a group of "men" and I use this term imprecisely, wants to have a Convention called "Sausage-Con" all power to 'em. That's not the case, so stop BS'ing like "Tha Gurls" trying to take our toys away, hm?
@Steve Simmons is nicely nailing anything I would say from a "I've been con security" standpoint, so +1 his comments.
Honestly, I think it's two pieces. First, there's people like 'Irk' above, who consider me automatically guilty for having a gender. 'Patriarchy', 'All Men Are Rapists', and so on, and pretty soon people decide that they can either stand with the creeps, or take fire from both sides. There's even some of that going on from you, Ken: you seem to be accusing 'the culture' of gaming for this fault. I'm a gamer. Therefore you're accusing me. Even though I've not actually done anything. I honestly don't think I've even befriended anyone who would act the way you describe. Few things make me as angry as over-general accusations.
Oh, yeah, and one more bit. People who are willing to accuse me of being a patriarchial mouth-breathing sexist pig for existing – well, they make it hard to believe the stories are real. After all, I know they're wrong about me.
Still, if it weren't for factor two, I could ignore the subject, or try to scold the real assholes if I ever ran into one. Add in the law, though, and I'm involved whether I want to be or not.
This is one of the areas of law where it's *very* easy to get in serious trouble though no fault of your own. Or at least, that's what it seems like as a non-lawyer – I'd be glad if you could prove me wrong.
– There's no physical evidence. Most sexist comments are going to be in person. Most real harassment happens in person, without witnesses.
– Guilt is in the mind of the listener, not any objective standard.
– You don't sue a person, you sue an organization, so the jury's likely to be biased. Too much 'they can afford it and she needs the money' sentiment, instead of 'is he actually guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Of course, if a jury punishes my employer, I can count on losing my job.
– False accusations can be profitable.
If I want to avoid being punished for murder, I have to…not murder anyone. Ok, that's easy enough. I can't even imagine how or why someone would frame me.
If I want to avoid being punished for rape, I have to not rape anyone, and also avoid sex with people who are unstable and don't like me. Which is frankly a bad idea regardless. Ok, theoretically I can see getting in trouble for an innocent act, but practically?
If I want to avoid being punished for harassment, I've got to not do it, and also be lucky enough not to work with anyone who might decide it's profitable to sue. I have no control over my coworkers, just my own actions, and that's not enough to make me safe.
That's a bit of a tangent – and yet not much of one at all, because that lightning could strike me at any time. I'm reminded of it any time the subject comes up, so I'm automatically feeling a little defensive and scared. Then people start ranting about Patriarchy and Rape Culture and…well, you do the math.
@David W
I think your claim that "Irk" "consider [you] automatically guilty for having a gender" is entirely unsupported by what Irk wrote.
I also don't think most men spend as much of their time as you seem to think they should worrying about getting sued for sexual harassment.
I don't think it's particularly difficult for a man to live his life in a way which makes false claims of harassment against him extremely unlikely, while at the same time not significantly curtailing his likelihood of getting laid.
In short, I'm not buying what you're selling.
@Not Claude Akins
Judging from the comments here, you'll be fine. There are plenty of people speaking up for the misogynists.
Ah, I found the page I was thinking of earlier: Geek Social Fallacies.
(Google-Chrome calls it a phishing site, and their webhost has suspended their account, so maybe they got hacked. Here is an archive I think is safe.)
http://web.archive.org/web/20130328034735/http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html
I don't think it's 100% accurate, but #1 seems quite on target.
@Orphan:
a)Hey, if you want to hold ManlyCon and say "No Gurlz Aloud!", that's your right. I think doing this could be interesting; at least some of the people attracted will be men generally uninterested in women (NTTAWWT), and it could lead to some possible case studies in what unwanted sexual attention is like.
b)If you feel "women following men around talking about furry rape" aren't reported, then, put on your big boy pants and REPORT THEM. Name names. Take photos. Get proof. Do whatever you have to and force people to either come up with some weird defense of their double standards that we can all laugh at, or agree that, yeah, in this age of equality and liberation, women can be creepy stalkers, too.
c)As I often point, usually to leftists, who go on about "cultural appropriation" and similar bafflegab… cultures don't have owners. Cultures are consensus things, changing moment by moment, the sum of the values of the people who compose them. The definition and boundaries and rules are constantly in flux. You can't (sensibly) argue "They've invaded our culture!", when it wasn't yours to begin with. There were a lot of Napoleonic gamers who got apoplectic when people started showing up at GenCon talking about "elves" and "magic-users" and not caring at all about sand tables and CRTs. Sucks to be them.
You have a right to be say whatever you like about the issue, and argue for whatever set of standards you choose to defend… and other people have a right, in turn, to judge you, based on their standards, and act as they see fit, and you can judge them right back, and so on. No one has a universal trump card — but, eventually, a majority opinion forms, a set of "This is what we consider Proper; this is what is Improper" rules are momentarily settled upon, and if your choice is the same as it always was — put up with it, or leave the subculture.
And, of course, that's exactly the situation that's been in place for decades. Women who wanted to participate in the SF culture had the choice: Accept being treated crudely, or not participate. Many found the value of the subculture outweighed the cost, and stayed. Eventually, they found there were enough of them that they could begin to wield influence in the ongoing process of cultural formation, and chose to do so. There will never be a permanent "resolution", because cultures aren't fixed in stone. There will always be give and take, ebb and flow. Sometimes, your values are dominant, accepted, "the norm", "everyone knows", "all good people think". Sometimes… they're not. Accept it, or fight to change it, but don't demand the world be placed in stasis at the point where you're happy. (Well, you can demand this, of course. It's just futile and silly you will be laughed at.)
Let them jump up and down on your lawn. If it gets them winded enough to pipe down, so much the better. (At the very least, they get some much needed exercise.)
I think when the topics get tough, that's when you know the topic is truly important.
@Ken: "…I declared everyone guilty…."
Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
(C'MON, you were ALL thinking it! :))
sorrykb –
First, you miss the point where I stated that this -isn't- a men-women thing and that I was speaking in the hypothetical, and second, you miss the point that a lot of these groups are -literally- the only social groups -for- these people.
Simmons –
Some of it might be nerds growing up. A lot of it is the huge influx of normal people. It's a topic of pretty entertaining anger in some of the older nerd groups I've been a part of. But would the nerds have ever been -able- to grow up, without their groups to practice with? You don't get less socially awkward by being more socially ostracized.
Blanton –
You confuse the frequency of reporting with the frequency of events.
And all three of you fail to grasp that a lot of nerds weren't brought together by a fondness for nerd activities, but because that was all they had, the only groups that would accept them. I don't think the mainstreaming of these things is necessarily a bad thing, I'm just explaining why there's so much bitterness about it. The "Club for socially awkward people" is starting to eject all the socially awkward people.
And no, it isn't limited to "real" harassment, it's "anything that makes somebody feel uncomfortable". You don't get to drop the social context – that is, the fact that in the real world, the definition of "harassment" has become increasingly nebulous, and telling a private joke to somebody else that gets overheard has become "harassment" of the eavesdropping party – and pretend that harassment is an objectively defined activity. -Any- socially awkward behavior has become harassment.
*Shrug* There's a compassion in the old nerd culture that is vanishing. Ah well. The socially ostracized will form new groups, and eventually be kicked out of those, too. That's pretty much the way of it.
@Orphan:
Does compassion require putting up, without complaint, with conduct that makes you feel uncomfortable and diminishes your enjoyment of an event? If so, does the burden of that compassion, with respect to "social awkwardness," fall equally on (1) me, a dumpy middle-aged guy, and (2) a woman?
Lizard –
I've been raped by a woman. I am right now -really fucking uncomfortable- around them. I -wasn't- socially awkward before that, but now I kind of am, and yes, a group which excludes women would in fact be kind of welcome – and right now I'm kind of stunned by the complete -absence- of men's groups. I think the only men-only area in a hundred miles of me is a rehab home for drug addicts, which doesn't exactly sound very thrilling.
And nicely presumed, but I'm bisexual, which is approximately the only thing keeping me sane at the moment. Yes, I get unwanted male attention. It's nowhere near as aggressive as unwanted female attention, but then, my history with that is kind of biased.
You'll forgive me if I'm not particularly sympathetic to the notion that anyone who wants to avoid women is misogynistic.
@Mike asks me
It's definitely not universal. Some accused understand that they might have limited social, some understand that what's an innocent or jocular remark is another persons offensive statement. Either way, they understand they are seen as offensive, but they accept that their perception of things isn't universal.
The people who instantly become angry and accuse the other of misunderstanding act as if there's only one way to perceive things, and that's his way.
@lelnet: ". . . Good luck with either of those."
Indeed, indeed. As for those who attempt "… the launching of mass campaigns to cost a person his or her employment [and] getting them blacklisted from their entire profession," that discussion goes both way beyond issues with convention security and what Ken's topic is here. So please pardon me if I duck it. :-)
Ken –
What obligation? Nobody forces anybody to be parts of these groups.
Don't presume I think these groups are obligated to keep the socially awkward, either. I simply understand their frustration and anger, and am trying to explain it.
@Ken White:
I think there are, in fact, many complaints out there are clearly aren't harassment. I think you cited one in your post (the 'lady writers' scandal). The hardcore SciFi fandom crowd (like the SFWA mailing lists) overlap heavily with communities that like to be offended about 'social justice' issues. I can understand, after having been in multiple arguments about if Margaret Atwood is a sexist for writing The Handmaiden's Tale, if @Evelyn has the perception that there are lots of non-scandals out there.
That said, it sure doesn't excuse the incidents you linked; some of the acts described aren't just sexual harassment, but assault. I'm horrified.
Orphan wrote:
I do understand this, from personal experience. Try, if you will, to imagine what it must be like to be a socially awkward and nerdy… girl (or woman). We exist, and we've been here all this time. Just as outcast as the nerdy guys, equally looking for others to share our interests, but far too often meeting harassment and hostility, and being called humorless bitches if we object to this behavior.
P.S. No matter how socially awkward we may be (and barring serious brain injury), we adults have at least some capacity to evaluate our actions and consider their effects on others. I don't think this is too much to expect.
@lelnet: I don't think what I wrote could credibly be read as a justification for excusing trying to get someone fired for making dongle jokes (though I think it's quite reasonable to get someone kicked out of a convention for grabbing my ass randomly, it's usually explicitly against the rules – nobody credibly complains when someone gets kicked out of a concert they've already paid for if they smoke indoors). Rather, I was saying that what looks like sexism because of the demographics of the subculture is actually just the normal human reaction to being rejected by a high-stakes and probable partner. Reacting to that defense of some of the "sexist" responses by men in geek subculture with a statement that's basically, "yeah, but donglegate happens, so I don't see why we shouldn't get angry at women who complain" is the equivalent of me saying "yeah, but some guys grab asses, so I don't see why we shouldn't just kick all of the ones who ask people out when they don't want it out of all social venues."
If the second part of your comment was independent of a response to mine, feel free to disregard the above criticism. However, given that it was part of a paragraph that appeared to be responding to me, I doubt that it was independant.
Right, which is why I deliberately distinguished it from harassment.
Though I can't say I sympathize with them in any way, shape, or form, I know where some of these people are coming from. They are the "equal and opposite reaction" to a brash form of feminism emerging amongst young women and men, especially in geekier circles.
I am staff at a very large geeky convention. The rather large pool of staff is roughly half women, by design. Recently there was an indicent whereby a male staff member was asked not to return because of creeper behavior toward several female staff members.
Very, very quickly, any and all discussion of the topic was shouted down by young women shouting things about "rape culture," "victim blaming," "penis privilege," "trigger warnings" and similar rhetoric. It wasn't even particularly relevant to the situation– nobody was assaulted, but the fervor of the response could be read as though these folks were fighting roving bands of gropey men. Anyone who called for moderation or moving on were called out – mainly by young men, quick to defend the young women as vocally and publicly as possible (methinks thou dost protest too much, sirs) – for being part of the problem and perpetrators of the advancement of various misogynistic practices.
I have a strong suspicion that the most vocal of these anti-geek-girl trolls are the other end of the scale from the very aggressive "rape culture" trolls.
From a personal standpoint, I've more experience in my personal life with actual victims of assault than I'd prefer, but feel that "victimization culture" and hysterical over-response to "creeper" incidents trivializes actual assault and the pain of its victims, hinders healing and poisons rational discussion. Creeping should be not tolerated, called out, and dealt with… but not held up as an example of the "all men are pigs" hysteria that seems en vogue on the left coast these days.
Well, Steve, your perspective on con security is, I'm certain, welcome here (I know _I_ welcome it, and simply assume that Ken does too, or else he'd say so)…but the discussion isn't _entirely_ about con security. Neither the Adria Richards case nor the SFWA bulletin kerfluffle involved con security, as far as I know, but they were both already part of the discussion when I got here, and I'd assert that they're both part of the phenomenon that Ken is talking about. (Other commenters make it clear I wouldn't be alone in this assertion, either. Nor is it limited to those who agree with my opinions.)
@ Wondering:
Thanks for this. There goes the rest of my day.
JLB
Syd: Just for the record, I did not intend to appear to be putting words in your mouth. In retrospect, the linking of a quote from you in a comment whose main bulk was not directed to you probably did imply that, which was a mistake. I am sorry for the confusion. The latter paragraph was indeed _not_ intended to be directed at you.
Lelnet: sorry for jumping up and down on you, then :)
@Ken
Keep in mind that on the occasions, like the aforementioned pycon dongle joke, where a clearly meritless allegation is made, those who stand up and point out the meritlessness of the allegation typically get shouted down as misogynistic pigs. That may cause others to decide to keep their mouths shut in future incidents.
I'm not saying I think that most (or even many) harassment allegations are meritless, just that it's hard to make an empirical judgement one way or the other, based solely on second hand reports, when certain types of reports get systematically chilled.
Ken quotes Evelyn:
and replies
I think it's almost impossible to measure. What I do know from experience is that it happens more often that people are willing to make formal reports on. Each year we get a small number of formal complaints, and 2-3 times as many informal ones, ie, where people are not willing to put their names on the complaint. From this and from other commenters in other forums (see the links in the OP), I infer that there are a lot more incidents – enough that I would not call it rare. "Infrequent" might be a better word, but I would definitely not call it rare. Caveat: that's one guy's experience, and is based on a limited number of genre types (gaming, sf cons, furcons).
@David W wrote in the midst of a long post:
First and foremost, my advance apologies for how my extracting those three lines might express them differently than what you meant. Now, that said:
Sometimes there is physical evidence, especially when mere "harassment" come up to the line that constitues assault and battery. A large smear of body paint from or on the hand of the grabber is pretty conclusive. Bruises, abrasions, hand marks are all physical evidence. It happens. And even when there is not physical evidence, there are a significant number of cases where neutral (IMHO) witnesses support the accuser.
In re "guilt in the mind of the listener, not any objective standard." No. Offense is in the mind of the listener. Whether that offense is reasonable or not and by what standard should neither be determined by lynch mob or by blanket denial of the validity of any standard.
"False accusations can be profitable" insults the entire class of people who have made accusations about harassment. How is this different from your taking offense because Ken mentioned offenses involving (among others) gamers?
@W. Ian Blanton:
Guilty as charged. I only regret that you responded first.
sorrykb –
Without putting too fine a point on it, do you think the group appreciated your presence more than resented it, after your complaints in that matter are considered? You're not obligated to put up with their crap, but they're also not obligated to keep somebody in their group who won't. (Just as other groups aren't obligated to keep the socially awkward types around.)
And what you are talking about is a -skill-. It is not, in fact, a natural ability for most people. It takes time to learn that skill, and these are the only environments for some people -to- learn that skill.
@Orphan:"You confuse the frequency of reporting with the frequency of events."
Afraid not – as I noted I've intervened when I've seen it happening and I've had to deal with it on both sides myself.
@Orphan:"And all three of you fail to grasp that a lot of nerds weren't brought together by a fondness for nerd activities"
Grasp it, dear God man – I've lived it. I was a freshman in high school who for some reason thought it would be funny to greet a girl in one of my classes by rolling on the "Harlot" table in the AD&D DM's Guide (Appendix C, page 192) and would then say in a cheery voice "Hello, my *roll dice* !"
I survived doing this only because, as I realized _4 years later_, she had a crush on me. (She would respond to my greeting by giggling and sitting across the table – God, I was blind and clueless…and probably lucky I didn't roll 91-92…that I recall)
Had I been talked to properly about it, I probably would have clued in a lot faster and probably saved myself some ugly incidents later on in life. At least I hope I would have. But I did learn.
While I can sympathize with your concerns about the lack of social tolerance for the socially inept I think you're misreading somewhat – the question here is – should the "Socially Awkward" be treated like a nature preserve? Where we watch them and allow them to go on their way? Or do we treat them responsible human beings?
@Syd:
"Again, I'm not saying nerdboys are bad with women, but there are a lot fewer women who share their interests than with the guy who likes more mainstream activities. So when the salsa dancing girl rejects the salsa dancing guy, he's probably not going to yell about it because there are another dozen salsa dancer girls."
While that's an argument that makes sense, I've been involved in social dance scenes for a dozen years, and the creeper/harassment issue is a constant one in those communities. Oddly, the times it generates the most heated emotions are when the offenses are the least serious. The few times we've actually had people engaging in very clear and very serious predatory behaviour (at least one of which led to criminal charges being filed) have been the ones that have involved the least controversy about taking action upon. What this suggests to me is that what seems to be a disproportionate response in regard to the topic has a great deal to do with general differences between men and women as to where the boundary between harmless joking/flirting and harassment. The farther over that boundary a specific incident is, the fewer people seem to get disproportionately bent out of shape about that incident.
@Kevin I'm not sure that's a very good example. Many people stood up and proclaimed publicly that the accusations in the PyCon dongle-joke incident were meritless, to the point where the woman who made them ended up getting fired from her job, and they amended the PyCon rules to prohibit public shaming.
Yes, one of the guys who was publicly shamed ended up getting fired by PlayHaven, but there was a huge backlash against that as well, because it was so obvious to so many people that he hadn't done anything which merited public shaming, let alone getting fired.
In the end, I think the woman who made the false accusation and PlayHaven ended up getting by far the shorter end of the stick.
They'll never learn if no one points out how they've screwed up.
@Jonathan Kamens:
Why do people need to be 'trained' on how to avoid harassment, then? If you could only be punished for actual wrongs, no one would bother with 'training', because any random person would know better.
No one trains you how to avoid murdering people.
The case on the top of my mind, which I may have even read about here at Popehat, is the one where the guy read, on breaks, a book about the downfall of the KKK. And was accused of being racist and fired. No facts required.
sorrykb –
Granted. But there's a difference between pointing out that they're screwing up and ostracizing them further, which tends to be the actual approach. Don't forget that being able to take criticism gracefully is -also- a skill.
Blanton –
I heavily advocate taking people aside and talking to them. I do -not- advocate public humiliation, which is the opposite of helpful, and tends to be the inclination of far too many people.
@W. Ian Blanton:
I'm picturing the "socially awkward nature preserve," but done "Wild Kingdom" style with the hapless Jim and a net. (Yes, I'm dating myself by mentioning this.)
There's some bad wording in my last post which I can't edit, and to head it off, "very clear and very serious predatory behaviour…" should probably be read as "the most egregious conduct has caused the least controversy when discussiong whether, and what the organizer's response should be", given that my point is that many men categorize behaviours different from women.
@Orphan: I didn't say *you* would be uncomfortable if an all-male SF con attracted gays; I said *some* people would.
I also don't recall using the term "misogynistic" in any post. I will say anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, who wants to "avoid" half the world's population is mentally unhealthy and is going to live an unfortunately circumscribed life. This condition may arise due to legitimate trauma/injury, as yours did, and that certainly evokes sympathy, but it's not a mandate for the rest of the world to reorder their existence.
To reiterate: If the current norms of a subculture make someone uncomfortable, they can:
a)Work to change those norms.
b)Cease participating in the subculture.
c)Decide the value of the subculture gives them more than the discomfort takes away, and "suffer in silence" until eventually deciding to do 'a' or 'b'.
Your comment that "There's people who aren't into geek things, they just are part of geek culture because they feel they fit in" is very interesting. Isn't that pretty much the "fake geek girl" meme, applied to men?
Sorry, you seem to be digging a deeper and deeper hole here. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but, to me, you seem to be arguing "Women should stay out of SF/F fandom, even if it's something they're into, because a lot of guys who AREN'T actually into it are there because they're just socially awkward, and then *girls* show up, and then then socially awkward guys get yelled at for being socially awkward!"
I mean, no one is *forcing* guys to awkwardly hit on women in ways ranging from crude to borderline criminal. They can, you know, just not bother, and simply do whatever it is they were going to do without trying to be suave and seductive. You don't "accidentally" say or do something crude or stupid. No one sane has ever said, "Well, I meant to say 'Excuse me, I need to get by here', but instead I said, totally by accident, 'Hey babe, nice tits!'".
Someone may reply, with some correctness, "Well, different people have different standards of what they find offensive!" This is absolutely true. So you start at the lowest possible default, and learn something about the person, and if they seem interested in flirting and maybe moving beyond that you, watch their body language and reactions and adjust as needed. I speak as someone who had absolutely no social sense, at all, through most of my life. I didn't kiss a girl until I was 19. (Yay, SCA!) I *learned* how to watch people, read people, pick up cues… mostly, kind of, enough to get by. It's like learning the rules to any complex game. You build mental models, perform experiments, see the result, apply what you've learned, repeat. (This means, BTW, that when someone tells you "You're doing it wrong.", you listen and apply this, not say "No, YOU'RE wrong!")
It's not easy, but it *is* possible. Replying "But it's haaaaard!" or "But we shouldn't haaaaave to!" is bullshit. If you want the rewards — being considered a decent human being, being respected by your peers, possibly even getting some non-self-inflicted orgasms — you put in the work. That's life.
Lizard –
This is the second time you've written a reply to an imaginary person – an imaginary person, I would add, who is not me, the person you purport to be responding to. Please read what I've written and respond to that, or ask for clarification, because what you seem to think I've written is so far off-base that I don't even know where to begin to respond.
@Steve Simmons:
I think I'm upset about something different than the cases you are thinking of. Of course assault should be punished. And when there's actual evidence of harassment, at the very least ejection from an event seems warranted. I'm simply of the belief that there are many cases where there's no evidence, but there is punishment anyway. Which can't help but bias me.
"How is this different from your taking offense because Ken mentioned offenses involving (among others) gamers?"
Um. Well…I can't see a difference. Perhaps I'm a bit thin skinned.
I've seen this dynamic play out in a number of male-dominated arenas:
1. Men get annoying with their flirting.
2. Women get annoyed with the men because they are not interested for whatever reason (such as already being in a relationship).
3. Some men become successful with women by being aggressive.
4. Women completely ignore the unaggressive guys, because if they ever are available in the dating pool, they get attention immediately.
5. Men witness this and realize they need to become aggressive to get a mate. Go to step 1.
It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. No one really likes the situation, but everyone's immediate self-interest is to keep it going.
Do such things occur in women-dominated locales? I don't know.
The root cause of the problem is that many things that are considered "sexual harassment" are welcome at some times and from some people, and are not welcome at other times and from other people. "Geek culture" is full of people who are poor at reading other people, which means that they make attempts that are clumsy and poorly-timed. There IS a factor of "stuff is OK here that isn't OK in real life" around SF conventions (less so in gaming)… that's the point of going to a convention in the first place. Et voila! Rampant harassment.
The solution is the same as it is in real life… immediate correction of the offending behavior, repeated as necessary.
@David W
The anti-harassment training that some employers do is far more about protecting the employer from liability and about following nanny-state laws (e.g., CA requires such training) than it is about imparting critical life skills to men without which they would inevitably say or do something that would get them sued for harassment.
I've had to go through such mandatory training probably five or six times over the course of my career, and believe me, I didn't learn anything from it that I didn't already know about how to treat people.
There are, no doubt, men who are falsely accused of harassment. However, there aren't enough of them for living in fear of such false accusations to be a rational approach to life.
As for, "No one trains you how to avoid murdering people," actually, people with halfway decent parents and teachers who live in a halfway sane environment are taught to avoid murdering people on an ongoing basis from the time they are born until the time they are old enough to have formed their own moral compass. They are taught this at the same time they are taught how to treat others with respect.
In my opinion, this, "Men are angry because they have to worry about bieng sued for harassment just for asking a woman out," trope is nothing more than yet another attempt to delegitimize the real harassment that women in our culture experience on an ongoing basis.
Mostly it's just that this is a highly polarized issue, with lunatic-fringe basement dwellers on BOTH sides angrily frothing. So you have your r/mensrights trolls angrily gnawing on their keyboards from their subterranean lairs, equating ANY discussion of women in society with personal attacks on them, and you also have hyper-politicized always-on-a-mission feminists who are absolutely, 100% positive that they are under neverending attack from every possible element of society that isn't themselves, and the only reasonable response is to attack BACK just as hard (or harder).
Civil rights went through this exact same phase, and I'm thinking you should be old enough to remember that, Ken. Twenty or thirty years ago, the people angrily ranting about Equal Opportunity very much were NOT relegated to extremist websites (not that there were websites, of course) – they were all over the place, and every single one of them had a story about how they couldn't get a job THEY were qualified for because some BLACK PERSON was GIVEN the job based on a "quota".
That's where we are now with women's rights – in the middle of a societal upheaval that just hasn't sorted itself out yet. So, yes, you'll get mouthbreathers of all descriptions raining down on you when you dare to take a stance… on EITHER side, or neither. It's annoying, but it's also no reason not to talk about it. Talking about it is what – eventually, finally, after many many years of talking about it – gets the relative moderates to see past "those people on that other side are crazy and out to get me!" to seeing their fellow moderates on the other side.
There's nothing you can do about the frothing nutty 5% or so (on both sides). They're gonna be there forever. The goal is just to get them separated far enough from the rest that you can easily spot them and ignore them…
@David: We DO train people how not to murder. We teach them don't pour arsenic in someone else's soup. Don't point the gun at someone and pull the trigger. Don't stab someone with a knife over and over until the rich, warm, red, blood runs down your hands and it feels so good and so bad at the same time and you know you'll have to.. ahem. You get the idea.
You don't realize you've been taught this, because it's been so internalized. You think it's something "everyone just knows".
We also teach people when it is OK to kill. In self defense, in a war, because the other person is actually not a human, but an automaton controlled by the NSA and we have to stop them before… uhm. Anyway.
Cultural values tend to change more rapidly than physical bodies do, so you need to relearn them more often than you need to relearn how not to kill. Things that are considered "normal" or "acceptable" — things "any random person" knows — shift over time. So you need to be constantly aware of changing norms, and adapt your behavior.
As Shaw wrote:"Forgive him, for he believes that the customs of his tribe are the laws of nature!"
Social "rules" are inherently arbitrary and irrational. Complaining about this fact is trying to order back the tide. The rules that were "normal" or "simple" when you learned them in your formative years were no more or less arbitrary and irrational than the new rules. That's life. It's unfair. It's unfair for everyone — but it's not *equally* unfair for everyone, and that's part of the unfairness.
For a third time: Organize to change the rules, endure the rules, or exit the society. Organize, Endure, Or Exit. Good phrase. I'll use it again.
@David W:
Au Contraire, Mon Ami:
"Put that stick down, you do NOT hit people."
"You need to slow down and stop when people are in the crosswalk."
"You! Stop this fighting immediately!"
It just happens from such an early age we all kinda forget about it.
@sorrykb
Oh Jim, poor Jim….
@Orphan
Absolutely, and it's great when you can resolve it that way. I always try and remember my younger self, but the there are plenty of people who don't want to learn.
As others have suggested, sexual harassment avoidance training has the following functions:
1. Satisfying laws requiring it;
2. Limiting employer liability by showing it was given;
3. Instructing the approximately 10% of the population that doesn't know how to act decently but is capable of being taught;
4. Persuading another 5% of the population that knows how to act decently but isn't inclined to do so unless persuaded that the detriments of not doing so are severe;
5. Informing supervisors of how properly to run a sexual harassment investigation;
6. Informing people subjected to sexual harassment of how to handle it, including reporting.
@Orphan: Here's the quotes I am, in general, responding to.
Since you may have missed a connection between aspects of my post and your comments, here's my logic:
You: Nerds resent being picked on because they're awkward when they hit on women, and this only happens because women keep showing up at cons! Nerds deserve a place where they won't be humiliated for being socially inept!
Me: Even if we accept your premise that nerds lack the social skills necessary to successfully hit on women, it doesn't then lead to the conclusion that women should just stay away from my cons in the name of not exposing nerds to humiliation, because nothing compels someone without the needed social skills to *try* to hit on women. They won't be mocked, humiliated, or called out for being "creepy" if they don't do creepy things. They can keep on doing their all-male, non-creepy, activities whether there are women there or not. OR, they could put in the effort to learn how to be non-creepy. Either works.
If you still think I'm "not getting it", we have a communication gap that could be either or both's fault. I'll leave it to the rest of the audience to decide for themselves.
@Lizard "You don't realize you've been taught this, because it's been so internalized. You think it's something "everyone just knows". "
Well, yes. Which is why I tend to think the conviction rates of murder and assault and harassment ought to be similar – just that fraction of society who can't understand basic morals.
Yet it's not anywhere close to the same, so what's a better explanation than false positives?
Although, if Ken really believes 15% of everyone would do this if not shown the stick, maybe I live a sheltered life. Maybe people who can't understand basic morals and respect for coworkers, can't hack it in engineering, either.
And now the Belkar avatar starts to make sense.
AKA, know who's actually responsible in the chain of command to do such investigations and stick them with it.
Lizard –
I don't think women "should just stay away." You're reading my tone as adversarial; I'm not. I'm trying to explain why the socially awkward feel the way they feel, and yet again, it's not a sentiment limited to men. I don't think they're entitled to sci-fi conventions being theirs; I am simply stating that there is some room for compassion for them, that their feelings in the matter aren't illegitimate. They -have- been displaced, yet again, which has been a pretty persistent theme in their lives, and maybe their sadness and anger isn't entirely out of place.
You seem to confuse my compassion with a desire to "fix" the situation. I think the situation is unfixable; I wouldn't hook somebody's dead cat up to an electrical outlet either, no matter how sympathetic I felt. I simply have some patience and compassion in me and wish other people did as well.
"Is it OK for BO-reeking D&D nerds to tell strange women about their rape fantasies …"
Best. Comment. Ever.
In a word: "No."
I find it more than a bit unsettling that there is a such as thing as "anti-harassment training" and that we even need to have this conversation.
Nigel
"Organize to change the rules, endure the rules, or exit the society."
Which is a very funny thing to say, because what Orphan's been saying all along is that The Rules *are* being Changed, but by people who look on the SF culture as a Neat Fun Thing rather than a safe space; that it's difficult to Endure The Rules when rule one is that rulebreakers get punished *hard*; and that Exit The Society is how most of these people ended up in the SF fandom culture in the first place.
Wow, there are so many fallacies in these statements in this that it's hard to know where to start.
A few minutes ago you claimed, as the foundation of your argument, that no one needs to be taught how to murder. When several people schooled you about how false that claim is, you gave a two-word acknowledgment ("Well, yes.") that your claim was wrong, and then went on to change the subject.
That's a pretty good sign of someone grasping at straws to try to defend an indefensible position.
Second, how, exactly, do you know that the conviction rates for murder and assault and harassment are "not anywhere close to the same." That's a statement of fact; do you have evidence to support it?
Third, your assertion that since not murdering people and not harassing them are, or should be, part of the same "basic morals," the percentage of the population guilty of each should be comparable, is wrong on so many levels that I'm not even going to try to explain them all.
Fourth, even if it were true that the the percentage of the population guilty of those two crimes were comparable, it would not logically follow that the rate of people being charged with them, or the rate of people being convicted of them, would also be comparable, again for so many reasons that it's not worth my time enumerating them all.
Fifth, you are aware, I assume, that harassment is often handled as a civil rather than a criminal matter, where the rules are very different and not at all comparable?
Finally, you yourself have explained the biggest reason why it might be more likely for someone charged with murder to be convicted than someone charged with harassment: the question of whether murder occurred is a heck of a lot less subjective than whether someone was harassed.
I got about half-way through the comments. It strikes me that there are a *lot* of people assuming that geeky/nerdy culture was set up by and for a certain type of man, and that any woman wishing to gain entrance is obviously an outsider. This is not the case. A lot of us geeky-nerdy women have been so our *entire lives* and have always sought out fellow geeks; some of us helped build geeky-nerdy circles! To suggest that we are outsiders to the clubhouse just ain't so, no matter how much a chunk of men feel we are invaders.
It's disheartening after years and years of hearing how the things I like and things I do are socially unacceptable because I am female. Seems to me that other social outcasts would have some understanding of being in similar boats, but alas.
I don't have any issues really with distint, defined, social settings for men only. I am of the opinion that in a truly equal society, such things would be natural at times and recognized as sometimes necessary, not ZOMG ebil sexism. Just…sorry, geekdom as a whole never was exclusive to men.
As far as the topic of the post goes, part of the cause of such vitriolic reactions is certain sorts of people simply feel uncomfortable with taking a look at their own reflection for fear they might see something they don't like and, having seen, take responsibility for it. When anything resembles a reflection, they lash out at the mirror rather than trying to figure out if the reflection is actually *theirs* in the first place.
Another part of it is the natural defensiveness of a person unfairly maligned for the acts of another. Not every socially awkward geeky male is a creep, but a whole lot of them get painted with that brush just the same. It gets tiring hearing how bad and rotten you are when you aren't. Some people build up thicker skins to such accusations, others don't. If they are the sort who has rarely encountered such generalizations about them, they are more likely to be poorly equiped to deal with it.
@David:
Morals have nothing to do with it.
The "rules" about "how not to kill people" don't change a lot.
The "rules" about "how not to harass people" change very frequently.
(I might note, by the way, that a good portion of the United States had a lot of trouble dealing with the idea that the rules for "how not to kill people" began to include "even if they've got dark skin and someone says maybe they looked at a white woman the wrong way". So much trouble, in fact, that the local courts and juries didn't catch on for a long, long, time. But that's another thread.)
Let's say, all your life, the speed limit on a road has been 55. It's been that way so long you stopped noticing the speed limit sign. Then you get pulled over. The officer says, "Speed limit's 30, now." You say, "But it's always been 55! How can you pull me over for driving 55?" Officer says, "It's your job to keep up on the law, not mine."
Behaviors that were not considered harassment once… now are. The laws have changed. Society is not stagnant. It's your job to know what the rules are, then make an informed decision about if you want to break them. Again, morality doesn't enter into it. A speed limit of 55 isn't more or less moral than a speed limit of 30. The social acceptability of behaviors, actions, and so on changes constantly, morality isn't an issue, just awareness of this week's basically arbitrary rules changes. Can't abide how last week's "everyone does it" is today's "no decent person would ever!"? That's your choice. Some people are going to put on their chamber pot, mount their sag-backed old horse, and charge right at that windmill in the name of FREEEEEDOOOMMMMM. I've got better hills to die on. As I said, I have no "instinct" for the rules of human interaction. I learned them as just that — rules. There's a rules patch with new errata and my paladin/assassin/wizard just got nerfed? I learn the new rules, or I quit the game. That's all there is to it, for me.
"They won't be mocked, humiliated, or called out for being 'creepy' if they don't do creepy things."
That is not an assumption, unfortunately, that can safely be relied upon, seeing as how "creepy" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and encompasses a vast range all the way from felony assault at the top down to "being male in my general presence, with or without any direct interaction of any kind with me" at the bottom.
People so dysfunctional that they don't know not to assault one another tend not to do well in the workplace. Neither, usually, do those so dysfunctional that they imagine that everyone of a given sex who happens to be in their presence is committing an atrocity against them. Employers find ways, pretty quickly, of getting rid of such folks. But in social settings, it's harder to do so.
@Lizard – curse you, Ninja!
@Ken
To bring this back around to the original question of "Why So Pissed Off?" I think are a couple of major factors:
Firstivo: We're at a different stage with sexism/harrassment/etc than we are with, say racism. I won't say racism is pushing up the daisies, but it's certainly moving with a limp (apply various disclaimers). It's a lot harder act in an offensive racist manner when you know that the odds are pretty high that you're going to be treated negatively because of it. It's that social training Lizard (and other) were talking about above. Short version: Because people riding of sexism think they can still get away with it without having their bullshit called.
(anecdote: I've been amazed at how many times I've "gotten away" with calling BS in online games with someone spouting racist/sexist/whatever crap. I do it, expecting to get kicked and more often people at worst go "…yeah…he was a douchebag..".)
2: Having to think about this stuff makes people examine their own motivations, and people HATE doing that.
People are afraid any little thing is going to be taken as "harassment". Most people are at least a little self conscious and inside somewhere is ALREADY a little gremlin hassling them saying "Oh MY god, I can't BELIEVE you said that!!" and they see this making it worse. What's more….
III: "Everybody's Playing The Game, But Nobody's Rules Are The Same"
Some people's ideas of polite sexual banter would get them burned at the stake 40 years ago. And they were doing it then. And that's fine, as long as the people they're directing it are playing the same game.
It means you have to be circumspect. You have to know where you stand, OR…you have to be willing to be reduced to a pair of smoking boots if you gauge wrong.
The hell of it is, I've seen guys who could pick up girls saying things like "Come on out here, you rollicking trolloping sauce bottle!". The rules are different and they vary from person to person.
These folks are worried that the fun will end, when it just means "Hey idiot, you can't use that as your opening line".
Because the real problem is not these people. It's the ones who use ALL of the above to hide – the predators. We're burning the brush where they hide.
And they don't like that.
if I ever acted in a way that made someone else either uncomfortable or fearful, I would be slightly mortified, and very apologetic. whether this is because of cultural gender conditioning or not, i'm curious as to why there seems to be an absolute certainty on the part of the reported that the reporter is the person in the wrong. that the reporter can't take a joke, is a prude, etc.
do women have to preemptively apologize for infiltrating the "no wimmenz allowd" boys club that had been geek culture? I find that idea patently ridiculous and that for all of the geek finger wagging at the "jocks" or "popular kids" for treating the geeks so poorly, some geeks are doing a bang-up job on treating the females in their ranks the same or worse.
the idea that if women want to participate in geek culture they either have to conform to a certain subset's ideas about said culture and the role of women within, or put up with whatever a certain subset dishes out is disgusting to me.
being alert to "creepers" is not playing the victim. when you are taught from an early age that it is YOUR responsibility to be aware of your surroundings and not to be alone in the dark, you might have a case of stranger-danger.
when you get on the internet and find out that there are certain dark areas of the web where strangers will take pictures of you without your knowledge purely for their sexual gratification, you might have stranger-danger.
if someone openly leers at you and then proceeds to grab your ass, the next time someone leers at you, you bet your sweet bippy you are going to be on the defensive for a roving hand.
often the reaction to victims seems to be:
assault me once, shame on me. assault me twice…well, yeah, it's still my fault.
that's why i'm angry.
@princessartemis +1!!!
If you got enough drinks in me, I might consider that I started going to cons to meet girls who were also "weird like me".
"If they are the sort who has rarely encountered such generalizations about them, they are more likely to be poorly equiped to deal with it."
A very important point. I really didn't "get" why girls reacted to a friendly "Hi, what's your name" in a bar, until I'd been in a few gay bars; after about the 4th guy trying to feel me up, I got the "Eureka" lightbulb.
"This is an empirical assertion. What is the support for it? "
Show me some actual harassment cases, and not just people being borish. All you have is lame anecdotes that do not pass the laugh
test.
"In my post, I linked to numerous people describing experiences of what
they saw as harassment."
You see 'harassment' I just see normal human borish behavior. I can give you as many examples involving women as the 'perps' as you've listed men (and then some).
"Shouldn't, by your assertion, there be a whole lot of complaints out there describing conduct that clearly isn't harassment?"
Just visit any mailing list where people troll each other and you have any number of 'complaints' there. Just people being… people.
"I have said that the community has issues, which I believe is correct."
Who is this 'community'? Am I a part too, being female? And, is there any 'community' where everyone is innocent? Have you considered whether the incidence of 'harassment' is higher in geeks than (say)
the rapper scene? Or, for that matter, the lawyer community? Show me evidence that the geeks are leaders in this field here…
"Writing about my own views on my own blog, which no one is obligated to visit, is somehow "(actual) harassment", akin to groping someone's ass or asking a stranger her cup size or something."
Trouble is, that the paranoia and rumours/myths you promote ends up as
my *personal* problem and I am feeling harassed by concerned outsiders who think 'the geek community has a problem' (and must repent). So, I'm just sending a nice polite geeky flame your way because a) I disagree and b) you're causing me actual real discomfort because *I* would like to be able to hang out on cons without strangers being
paranoid about my presence being a threat to their livelihood.
In fact, you're harassing the entire geek community with your attempt to nanny and police us, without even being a part of it.
"Also: let me assume for the sake of argument that you are a female geek, as you suggest. [I don't think that makes your pronouncements
about female geekery unsustainable, but that's neither here nor there.]"
Ah, behold the quality argument of 'dissenter from my valiant valid point might not be a real women' but a man posing as a female. And if
I'm really female, I must be an outlier or even a traitor to the feminist cause, right?
"Do you genuinely crave the society of men who are afraid of you because they've been told not to harass women?"
Another quality attempt at argumentation… insinuating that I'm some kind of masochist who enjoys (nay, craves!) hanging out with potential creeps(and and _entire_ society of 'em, no less!) because I dare to defend my
fellow geeks instead of viewing them all as potential enemies.
Look, I go to meet other geeks because I like talking about geeky stuff and because no-one else wants to talk to me about those rather
dry (and often complex) topics other than fellow geeks.
If people avoid me because they are afraid that they might get dragged into a crazy situation over a misunderstanding, it's a) a problem and
cuts down on my geeky enjoyment, because it limits my ability of meeting people in a neutral way, and it's not a great feeling when
people are walking on eggshells around me and strain to keep their guard up at all times and worry about every word they say.
b) I don't think that being afraid of me is a crime, and I do not enjoy seeing people worried. Quite a few geeks have enough social
phobias already.
So, I hope you can see why I regard this kind of concern trolling as direct harassment of the entire geek community.
@W. Ian Blanton:
D. I see what you did there.
I'm not generally vocal because I care about my rep and know better than to speak up, but what I tend to take issue with is the overly broad definitions going on. Take someone who rarely has female company and stick him in a room full of cosplayers wearing (here I search for an objective term) revealing costumes and damn right he's gonna stare. It can be hard not to even for someone like me, who is only moderately socially inept. Your original post lumps that near-involuntary behavior in with true creeper activity (depending on your definition of "openly leer").
I'm not gonna argue with all these examples – I can think of very few cases where unwanted touching isn't obviously creeper material, and con-stalking is sadly somewhat common and deserves the stigma and, yes, nard-kicks. By adding "checking out the boobs on that Cortana cosplayer" (something I personally am guilty of at A-Kon 2010) to the list of unacceptable behavior, it feels like you're placing the inability to not be obvious about staring at female sexual characteristics on the same level as grabbing said characteristics (or following them around for a few hours and pestering them to come back to a room).
When this happens enough, you get a reaction out of people who have never and would never actually harass someone, but feel like there's no way to win. Being male and attracted to women is perceived as the crime, and any action that supports that attraction is evidence. There's a backlash against this, and some nuts who think that actual harassment is defensible join in.
I agree with you, though, that actual harassment doesn't merit the defense it seems to sometimes receive, even in these relatively benign comment pages.
Interacting with other people without giving offense is a skill, and it is one which is easier to develop if one has certain talents and harder if one lacks those talents. (this is true whether you're talking about intergender interactions or not, in cases involving sexual negotiation or not.)
If you accept that, although some fans of geek culture are quite skilled in this area, the aggregate average is below the aggregate average of society as a whole, you have two problems. One is people who have the requisite talents but have not (yet?) developed the skill (which takes practice), and you have people who lack the requisite underlying talents and thus face difficulty in mastering the skill.
Now, treating people in the second category as if they were in the first is non-productive, as the solutions are not the same. A person who lacks skill due to lack of practice can improve with more practice. But a person who lacks the requisite talent underlying will probably not improve much even with practice, and expecting them to improve substantially is misguided… and applying punishment for their inability to improve is even more so.
Alas, it is sometimes best to suggest that someone retreat from the field. Blind people are probably not destined to become expert trap shooters. Quadriplegics are probably not destined to become great athletes. Geeks with more-than-borderline-Aspergers are not going to become smooth-talking ladies' men.
And, it's not like social-awkwardness is limited to the male portion of the geek culture, either… geek womenfolk have ALSO been known to make mating attempts that use wildly inappropriate or poorly chosen methods and techniques, as well… it's just that A) there weren't as many of them, and B) they tend to be more passive than active. (I remember one convention where corsetry suddenly became a thing… which is one thing when the person wearing a corset is 100-ish pounds, and quite another when the corsetee is pushing 250 or more.)
I think this is ultimately a self-correcting problem. Guys that are able to master the skill of talking civilly to women will learn the skill. Guys that are not will retreat to whatever outcast-driven enclave is willing to support their inability. Women who subject themselves to geek-heavy events will learn to instruct the poorly approach-skilled, or they'll get tired of it and attend events where the poorly-skilled don't attend. In other words, it's just like high-school… the popular kids will sit at the popular kids table and interact mostly with the socially-skilled, while the geeky kids will sit at the geeky kids table and do geeky-kid stuff. Only they'll be grown-ups instead of teenagers.
Posting first, reading comments later. Maybe that way I won't be annoyed when I reply.
This is rather simple, and relies on two characteristics:
1: The charge: "Creepy" is a pretty subjective and broad category. Just look at the real estate of human behavior that something as specific as "rape" accounts for these days and multiply by several thousand times. It's that every guy is "creepy" at times to various women, whether he intends anything or not. Contact or speech is not even required. "Did you see that creeper staring at us?". So when the witch hunt starts to stamp out "creeping" guys know that we are all on the firing line, especially those of us who may have less-than-fully-developed methods of communicating to the other sex. Ring any bells?
2: Geek culture. It's made up of geeks, who are definitionally not that good at social interactions with women. In my geeky experience, even geeky girls don't relate that well to other women. It is a male sphere, based on intensive knowledge of obscure trivia and useless skills honed to world-class levels of proficiency. All that time spent grinding to High Warlord is time not spent learning the social intricacies of how to talk to girls.
3: Geeks do not view themselves as "creepy", even when they undoubtedly are. We tend to see ourselves as solid and logical in a sea of emotion, and to ignore as unimportant crucial social skills. When accused of it, they know their intent, which was likely not creepy at all, but all other people can see is their behavior. Add in the absolute ease of tarring a socially awkward young man with such a damaging epithet, and the ubiquity of that threat, and I think you have your answer for why they react strongly.
For myself, "Creepy" is another word swiftly being overused to categorize all male social behavior as perverted, pathological or evil in some way. Some men are creepy, but like porn, it's contextual, and you only know it when you see it. "Rape" is another one, but geeks tend to worry less about that because their limited social interactions with women make it unlikely they would ever be targeted by a false charge. "Creepy", for a geek, is impossible to avoid.
I think the anger that greets discussions about sexual harassment is a symptom of a deeper issue, which is this: This is a bit of a generalization, but in general, men and women are talking about different things when they talk about gender equality. Men assume that gender equality means women are free to play under the same rules that have always existed; women assume that the rules will be changed. For example, the whole notion of employers offering flex time, work from home, and maternity leave is basically a feminist invention; before women started working outside the home, the idea was that you got ahead in your career by showing your loyalty to the company by being there when your employer needed you, and not when it was convenient to your family life. And I'm not saying flex time is a bad thing; I'm merely pointing out that one side effect of gender equality is that the workplace looks a whole lot different than it used to.
I'm old enough to remember when women could not join the YMCA, and nude swimming was the first casualty when they did. I'm of an age in which guys swam nude, in places like the YMCA that were off limits to women. Men exercised nude, men walked around the building nude, and anyone with modesty issues would have been considered odd. And there was a certain freedom, cameraderie, male bonding, that's gone now, and I would be less than honest if I didn't admit that I miss it. Guys who are too young to remember it don't miss it, but guys my age mostly do.
And it's really only in that context — will women be allowed to play under the current rules, or will they be allowed to change the rules — that the tension in this discussion can be understood.
@Evelyn:
This, fundamentally, is a clash of values. If the linked examples are to you merely "boorish," and make you laugh (for example, those here), then you have a free speech right to say so, and I have a free speech right to say that's creepy and disordered, and a free association right to avoid you.
Perhaps you've been hanging around different people than I have; I don't see that as normal. Moreover, you are free, like Humpty Dumpty, to make "harassment" mean whatever you want, but the links are full of examples that would be sexual harassment under any legal definition or any commonly accepted definition.
So, to sum up: you live in a world where it's harassment for me to make a social and political argument on my own blog, but it's not harassment to do these things from the link above – rather that's laughable human behavior:
So, in addition to being the Official Spokesperson for women, you are the Official Spokesperson for who is or isn't part of the entire geek community?
No, I don't subscribe to the idea that people are supposed to have a particular set of beliefs or values based on their race/gender/etc. I do, however, subscribe to the belief that on the internet it's prudent to subscribe to skepticism about whether would-be flame warriors are mere trolls or who they purport to be. That's only sensible.
You should definitely advocate for some sort of anti-harassment policy.
@thesis_ascendant I absolutely agree that there's a lot of lumping together harassing behavior with boorish behavior, and that said lumping together is conterproductive to both civilized discourse and reducing the harassment.
I wonder if that's in part because there are actually two different problems people are talking about, both of which are real.
On the one hand, you've got the real harassment — unwanted touching, repeated propositions despite clear rejections, men following women around, men cornering women in elevators, etc. — perpetrated by individual men against individual women. (And yes, women also sometimes do it to men, and women do it to women, and men to it to men… but those are far less frequent, and it's not really the problem we're talking about here, so forgive me for using one-sided language for the time being for the sake of simplifying my writing.)
On the other hand, you've got boorish behavior, which can't really be called harassment per se by each individual man who engages in it, but which really does create a hostile environment for women when you add up all the separate men engaging in it in close physical or temporal proximity.
In other words, if one guy leers at your boobs and makes a rude comment, that's rude but presumably tolerable. But if twenty guys do it in an hour, well, that's something else entirely. In that situation no particular man is harassing you, but I'd imagine it can be just as unpleasant and perhaps even traumatizing as real harassment from a single perpetrator.
@Jonathan
I would like to be wrong. I'd like to believe the only people who get hammered are those who deserve it, and ideally that there aren't many people who deserve it, either.
Frankly, though, you're doing nothing to convince me. Lizard and Ian and Steve Simmons have at least convinced me that it's more complicated than I thought and I may need to think more, but you just want someone to bash.
Hmmmm, I would venture to guess that many of the social awkward men that are lashing out at women were actually children of single mothers. Women struggle to raise young boys by themselves. I am not saying it is impossible I am just saying that trying to keep themselves and the kids fed leaves them emotionally distant and out of touch with their sons, because it is just not within the female experience as to what boys experience as they mature. Just so I am clear, I think two women raising a young boy are going to do a hell of a lot better and may even be superior to their heterosexual counterparts.
These young boys are left to their own devices to determine what constitutes "normal" social behavior. Have the young boy be introverted and you have a recipe for disaster. A large majority of these boys will figure it out, but it will leave them a bit quirky, with strange but societal acceptable twists that will be worn down over time. But some of these boys will not. They are they ones that I think we are talking about.
The hatred from these boys of women is transference of their own frustration at a mother that was never there. The macho men that women where incessantly kept down by, are not these man children, but women's frustration will come out at these inept men's societal incompetence which will create a negative feedback loop that spiral's to each sides (men / women) frustrations. And because each sides frustrations are so deep seated this can produce some nasty results.
I think the misunderstanding comes from each side projecting their fears on the other. Women wanting to see the socially inept as the machismo man that has insulted and abused them, and Men seeing women as their mothers. These are powerful barriers to overcome.
@Tarrou:
I see this argument a lot: that it's problematic to complain about creepy behavior because creepiness is subjective. I suppose I could put another label on it, like "handsy" or "aggressive or unwelcome" or "boundary-crossing."
Let me again use some specific examples of accounts that I linked to from here:
Do you have an objection to me calling any of those creepy?
I can imagine the existence of men (and women) who for reasons of upbringing or non-neurotypical status having difficulty understanding that such conduct is creepy. But to be perfectly blunt, I don't see why everyone else should have to put up with feeling creeped out to accommodate such people. Why, exactly, should we refrain from calling out that behavior?
@thesis: Yeah, I've been informed I am an enemy of all wymminkind because I admit that if I see an attractive woman crossing a public space two dozen feet from me, I feel no great compulsion to pull an Oedipus Rex and pluck out my eyes, lest my all-powerful, soul-destroying, gaze linger on her for 0.0001 seconds and completely and utterly destroy her personhood for eternity. (I've been told, quite sincerely, that it doesn't matter whether or not she even *notices* that I glanced at her for second; my mental awareness that someone is attractive is a vile and contemptible sin. The sour-faced Baptists in the audience nod in agreement.)
I happily mock such extremists. You know, like I just did. Sure, it's shooting fish in a barrel, but I'm lazy. I'll take the easy shots.
I'm not going to let the presence of the handful of neovictorians turn me into a defender of assholery, harassment, or an advocate of constantly "forgiving" offensive behavior because people who can memorize 500+ pages of rules for Advanced Squad Leader claim to find it too difficult to learn "Don't grab someone's breasts unless/until they have, explicitly, told you 'These are my breasts. Grab them.'" (As one of the Perennially Clueless myself, that's pretty much what women who were attracted to me had to do to get through my Wall of Obliviousness. ("Hmm… she's told me three times in the last 10 minutes that her roommate won't be in their room. Hmm. I think she's afraid of going back to an empty room. I'd better stay with her here in the Con Suite until she feels comfortable going back."))
Using the extremist minority to justify ignoring the sane majority is a con game, and I don't mean the kind you play at 1 AM in the Open Gaming Room. I won't fall for it. A look at the comment section on this thread: http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/06/it-just-keeps-getting-better.html ought to convince anyone who is remotely close to being a marginally sane human being that there are plenty of people out there in the SF community who encourage and support each other's worst impulses.
You can ridicule the ridiculous without defending the indefensible. It's not an all-or-nothing game where you have to pick one side and then defend it to the death. Nuance and context can exist. Anyone who insists you MUST pick one side, and take no prisoners, nor consider any compromises, is mockery worthy, and will be mocked.
@Lizard +1
@Jonathan Kamens
I'm pretty much in agreement with you, just want to make one distinction:
You said "…if one guy leers at your boobs and makes a rude comment…"
I'd be with you in describing that as extremely boorish. My comment's point was to completely separate the leer from the rude comment. Is leering OK if you don't say anything? If not, how many seconds are you allowed to look before it becomes unwelcome? Is there any way to not be creepy without pointedly keeping one's eyes off that area, or is that obvious enough to be creepy in its own right?
I honestly don't know, and I'm better equipped for this than a lot of geeks.
No need to answer, just throwing this out there as an example of the sentiment that fuels the protest.
@Lizard
Pretty much agree with you, just doing the whole devil's advocate thing. Harassment seems to have become a knee-jerk issue for some people, and that was my theory as to why.
Anecdote time, to illustrate the "creepiness" problem. I have a friend, total natural with women. Always has been. I've done all right, but he was a rockstar. One night in the pub, he looks to his right, drapes his arm across the shoulders of the strange girl who just sat down, leaned back for a good look and drops this line: "That's a great ass. I'd like to put my penis in it". And she laughs. They talk. And he disappears with her for the remainder of the night not twenty minutes later. This is inexplicable to me. Never in a million years could I have spoken those words to any female, ever, and be seen as anything but "creepy". But some people can. And for every geek who knows he can't pull it off, there's one out there who just might figure it could work. Because "creepy" is all timing and reception. You show me a creepy statement, and I guarantee you some guy, somewhere, used it to get laid. And geeks aren't dumb, they can observe similar situations.
And if I my drift further from the solid evidence and psychoanalyze like a true amateur, geeks are the sorts of men women should like. Or at least that's what geeks think. Intelligent, good earning potential, sensitive, progressive socially etc. etc. But they aren't attractive to women and they know that too. Hence the cognitive dissonance and the anger at women for preferring the "assholes". Of course, not all women do, but substantially more than are interested in emaciated or swollen "basement dwellers". And hence the awkward periodic ill-timed aping of those self-same assholes, with the corresponding confusion and anger when women take offense.
A thought for the girls. You control how men act around you. Not individually, of course, but collectively. Make a behavior unacceptable to women everywhere, and it dies swiftly. If we can agree that men should not make a certain gesture or verbal gambit, then you can't be rewarding certain men who do it and not others. Monkey see, monkey do.
@ Ken.
Of those scenarios you listed, I see four assaults and some relatively common (for a celebrity) arrogance. You, of course, are welcome to call them whatever you like, but "creepy", while descriptive, is not specific. Any word which cannot distinguish a look across a room from a sexual assault is a word too vague for precise usage. It is a word meant to conflate things which are not equivalent. When you use it, you imply (to me at least) that you would like me to think "sexual assault", but in reality could be referencing any male behavior at all. Hence your reliance on situations which are clearly over social and legal lines. These situations I have no doubt are real, and there are likely far worse ones out there. It does no favors to the victims of actual harassment and sexual assault to gain points in internet arguments by conflating their pain and embarrassment with social faux pas.
Ken, your lawn will continue to be trampled. Water frequently and deeply. If the geek / nerd / dork / dweeb / game / SF / [your pet community here] communities ever get straightened out, there are many more with similar problems.
I think that guilt and shame and fear are three of the deeply hidden drivers. "I did that, when I was young and stupid" / "Someone did that to my friend and I didn't do anything about it" / "If I did or said that would I be outside the new bounds?"
There's also a large demand that everything must be fixed perfectly NOW!
"A thought for the girls. You control how men act around you."
No. A million Nos. I am not responsible for your behavior. You are. I am responsible for my own. That line of reasoning is really scary.
"Make a behavior unacceptable to women everywhere, and it dies swiftly. If we can agree that men should not make a certain gesture or verbal gambit, then you can't be rewarding certain men who do it and not others. Monkey see, monkey do."
Women are not a monolith. We are not all one hive mind that thinks the same and acts the same and even all the same goals. We are people. Some women like things that other women don't. Some women are okay with things that other women aren't. Like all people. Expecting us to all think and act and react the same for the same end goal is expecting to us to not be people.
Personally, I would have reacted very negatively and probably loudly to your friend's comment.
@ Ken,
A further note, I can think of at least two of those scenarios you listed which were clearly assaults which I've seen accepted or welcomed by women. The carrying-off and the tattoo peeking, specifically. See my post above for more, but I think a lot of it really is that nerds saw this crazy thing work one time, and they want to give it a whirl. Of course, being geeks, they have neither the body language nor the social presence to make it seem lighthearted or funny. But yes, I stand witness to you today that you can get women by tossing them over your shoulder and carrying them off. I've seen it. Doesn't make it appropriate behavior, but you must admit it is confusing and infuriating for those endowed with little social skill to see the exact same behavior rewarded in others.
@thesis_ascendant
It's actually quite simple… It's boorish if it makes the woman it's directed at uncomfortable. Easy as pie, right?
Seriously, no, not simple at all. There are a myriad of factors which go into it, and they're constantly changing, and some of them are hard to put a finger on and even harder to explain. And some of those factors are things you couldn't possibly know or be expected to know. For example: has the woman you're flirting with been con-stalked by the same guy for the past 24 hours? Or is she a nutter who thinks that anybody who glances at her is a stalker?(*)
And yet, many and I'd venture to say perhaps even most men manage to figure it out most of the time, and avoid being perceived as boors most of the time, often without even consciously realizing they're doing it.
That, unfortunately, doesn't help the men who find themselves unable to do so. They get more and more frustrated by being perceived as boors over and over again, and to protect their own self-image they almost have no choice but to transfer blame for that to others, and that brings us back full circle to the original topic of this thread, i.e., why so many people get so worked up about this.
(*) I am reminding of the black man at the supermarket who decided I was a racist, and told me this so loudly and at such great length that the store manager came over to settle things down, because I put one of those dividers on the belt between my groceries and his. The checkout clerk was also black, and he was absolutely convinced that the only reason I could possibly feel the need to separate my groceries from those of the next customer was because I had looked at the color of her skin and decided from it that she was too stupid to be able to tell where my groceries ended and his began.
My aunt was the first and only female salesman at a steel plant. One of her "colleagues" thought it was funny to hover over her making panting noises while oogling her chest. My aunt asked him to stop it but he didn't. He was having too much fun.
The tipping point was reached when he did this in a staff meeting in front the CEO and everybody. My aunt snapped and punched him. HARD. Knocked him on his butt. Naturally he was a bit peeved and tried to charge my aunt only to be held back.
The "colleague" put in his notice the next day and after that my aunt went from being the "the girl" to being one of the guys. Nobody gave her a lick of grief after that.
The CEO never said a word.
Girls are brought up to act "lady like" and punching people is definitely *not* lady like. But sometimes its the only thing that will get through to a guy, which makes it somewhat unfortunate that we are so strongly conditioned against it.
I'm not sure if I wanna dive into the comments here (for all the reasons you've outlined above), but I did want to say thank you. I'm not exactly sure what I'm thanking you for, except that 1) I know you're someone I respect, 2) you're talking sensibly on the subject, and 3) you are not a fellow lady. When women mention the out-of-proportion anger, inevitably men with this type of anger tend to go, "Well of course she would complain, she has something to gain from complaining" and tune it out. But they will listen to man who says the same thing. Or at least that's the experience I've had.
I have already seen that there are comments on here that will irritate/exasperate me, and I know exactly what answering them will get me. Maybe I should quit while I'm ahead. :p
@ Wondering.
You are not personally responsible for the behavior of anyone but yourself. And I wouldn't dream of placing that on you. And I did not say that women are monolithic. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm saying that because female desires and attractions are heterogenous, men get conflicting messages about what is appropriate and useful in dealing with women.
Some men can do things that others cannot, and there's no logic to it. Much of the "PUA" community so lamented around here is based around trying to put logic to that very problem, or at least sell a type of logic to other men.
What I'm saying is observation, not prescription necessarily. Any behavior unacceptable to at least the overwhelming majority of women impedes a man's access to sex. Men will hence jettison it, posthaste. To bring the topic full circle, and to repeat what I said in reply to Ken, some women reward the very behavior being criticized here. And if you think men in general or even geeks in particular care more about what Popehat says than what they see being rewarded with sex, you are truly in the weeds.
It isn't your job to police the behavior of other women (nor is it mine). But you can't expect behavior that results in sex to be eradicated by a high-minded internet campaign. And you can't expect men to not emulate what they see working. Sorry.
@Wondering: Thank you! That's exactly what I would have said if you hadn't said it five minutes earlier.
Now I really should leave the comments section before I get sucked in and end up blowing my homework time on internet rage.
@thesis_ascendent, looking isn't a problem. Staring is rude, but hard to avoid at times, so forgivable. Leering is a whole other thing. Leering is not just looking; it has some action behind it, it is intentional. It's the difference between "Wow!" and undressing someone, piece by provocative, lacy piece, with one's eyes.
I have some confidence that even the most sheltered of heterosexual men can figure out how to look without leering.
@David W
Tarrou wrote:
So… I should assume that men are mindless animals, incapable of thought and self-restraint? Talk about sexism… I actually think better of men than that.
P.S. There's plenty of behavior abhorrent to the overwhelming majority of women that hasn't ended.
Wait, VoxDay is "alarmingly close to the mainstream"? He thinks that acid attacks on women are the price you pay for a civilized society (*). He's not even close to the maintributary.
I hope.
(*) I am not exaggerating.
@Tarrou: there is no no social or legal privilege to the effect of "this could possibly result in sex, so therefore you should excuse it."
The conservation reminds me, a bit, of discussions in college. Some people maintain that resistance or "no" means no. Some people would respond that "sometimes women just say that and want you to press a bit more." My position, and the position of people I respected, was generally that (1) I'll assume that resistance or no means no, and (2) a hypothetical woman who plays games and says no when she means yes is probably bunny-boiling trouble anyway, and best avoided. "But," people on the other side would argue, "what if you're wrong? What if she's waiting for you to press some more?" Then, I suppose, I've lost an opportunity to have sex. Oh well.
Similarly, the fact that everyone has heard of an anecdote where guy said something repulsive and a woman reacted well doesn't mean that everyone has license to try without social consequences. Might, if you said "hey, wanna fuck" to 1000 women, one say "yes?" Perhaps. But there is no "I am entitled to do anything that might lead to sex" exception to the general rule that you face the social consequences of your actions. You still deserve to be treated as someone who says "hey, wanna fuck?" to complete strangers because you are hoping for that one woman in a thousand and don't particularly care about how the other 999 feel about it.
The fact that some people will act idiosyncratically to obnoxious behavior is not an excuse for obnoxious behavior. If I start a bar fight with a thousand guys in a thousand rough bars, a handful will shake my hand afterwards and say "hell of a fight," and maybe buy me a beer. That doesn't make it socially acceptable to start bar fights. That doesn't mean that if I go around starting bar fights, I shouldn't be treated like someone who likes to start bar fights.
@AlanMorgan: I don't mean "alarmingly close to the mainstream" as a compliment. I mean that nutty and frothing freakery is more common and closer to accepted on issues of gender than on, say, issues of race. "Society conspires to advance the interests of women over men, and women can't be trusted" is tolerated to a greater extent than the same comment with "blacks" substituted would be, for no logical reason.
Tarrou, men are no different than this: "I'm saying that because female desires and attractions are heterogenous, men get conflicting messages about what is appropriate and useful in dealing with women. Some men can do things that others cannot, and there's no logic to it."
Some men react well to certain behaviors in women and some do not. Lots of men do not like women coming onto them at all. I speak from experience. Lots of other men are fine with it. There is absolute logic in it. The logic is that *people* have different preferences and comfort zones. Assuming that one woman will like something just because another woman did is to assume a monolith. Respond and interact with people as people, with different desires and preferences: that is the logic. Is it hard to figure out. Yes. As is any personal interaction.
On a related note, is anyone here familiar with Dr. Nerdlove's blog? He has a dating site specifically geared toward male nerds and frequently deals with these topics of social awkwardness and not being a creeper and such. I've seen several comments here about how (male?) nerds aren't taught how to not be socially awkward or how it's a lost cause at this point in their lives. Well, that's a blog that's trying to teach and help. I don't always agree with what he's saying, but it's a resource that's trying to make a difference.
When I was growing up, I was taught that women should not be treated as mere sexual objects. In '91, I walked around Greenlake in the Seattle area with a Bi female, and was treated to a description of all the lovelies that walked the other way in terms I thought were non appropriate. My! What lovely female body parts walking past us!
I was told that it was well neigh a sin to stare at a female's sexual organs. i.e. to not be a live bobblehead while watching a lady move from one location to another. At the 1986 and 87 NorWesCon and Alternacon there were 1. close to 50% females present, and 2. a costume ball. A group came in dressed as a Queen and all her ladies in waiting – giant hoop skirts, with tops that ended just below the breasts – cinched tight so the belly was half it's normal diameter. Red crushed velvet, as if giant flower boxes held from a window ledge, spilled out around the No-Look-Zone. Just above the aereola, a bed of white fluffery was planted in these giant flower boxes in front of these group of women. And I'm supposed to believe that these costumes were designed such that males were not supposed to pay attention to the marvelous Tracts of Land on display? (Tis like being tasked to visit a strip club and ignore the pasties..)
And I was taught that public groping was a no-no.. but then I attended a kilted wedding in London, England and found out that the first thing U.K. females do after a couple drinks at a wedding reception is find out whether you're wearing your kilt correctly. And they're doing this while standing next to their husbands. (If this is one of the worst social blunders a male with no social skills can make (groping a female) – then why is turnabout considered fair play?)
All the rules I learned ended up not being universal. Except the fact that if someone keeps chanting, "The computer is your friend!" you should stay away from them. (This is not a reference to general geekdom – it's about an obscure game that was popular back around the time Bukaroo Bonzai (the movie) and Howard The Duck (the movie) came out. )
Do conventions nowadays have a video and test online to show how to interact with other con goers, that would give at least a few ideas on how to say.. pick one's jaw off the ground, walk up to a 17th century costumed lady and say, "How fareth thee, mylady?" To give them a number of ideas on appropriate praise so they don't instantly come off as a creeper or sexual harasser?
@b: No! Not in any way!
And, if I've been so unclear as to make that a possible reading of my comments, then I should probably stop.
@sorrykb
No. That's not what you should assume, but if you got that from what I wrote, I doubt I can help with your assumptions. What I said was that sex is a stronger drive for most men than internet approval from Ken @ Popehat.
Men are clearly capable of self-restraint, some more than others, but overall, pretty good at it.
Allow me to make a ridiculous fake scenario to explain this (it may appeal to your sense of humor or mental age). You are a man, a young man, whose most driving biological urge is to procreate. You are a decent and sensible man, who would never want to hurt a woman. You are in a public place. You see another man walk up to a woman, and say "Purple Elephants". She laughs, flirts, they talk, then leave together. Then you see another man approach a different woman, same thing "Purple Elephants", and off they go. Then you spot a third woman, and she does not have someone monopolizing her. You screw up your courage, walk over, and what do you say?
The sex drive is only the motivation. What we are talking about is social conventions. And there are social conventions for handsome and articulate, confident guys, and there are social conventions for skinny prematurely balding gamers with halitosis and a stutter. And the problem is that some gamers and geeks don't understand or accept that they are second-class citizens in the dating world. They think they can do what other men do, and are rewarded for. It is precisely their self-restraint and thought which handicaps them.
What amazes me is that most of them do all right. Most of them learn the ropes, at least to a rudimentary degree. Some of us put a lot of work into it. Some don't. But none of us want to be the sort of man who makes women uncomfortable. We're just not always sure how to not be that guy, other than avoiding women completely.
@OngChotwI
I've never followed the logic of this argument.
Imagine that I turned it around on you.
"My wife calls me 'sweetie' and is fine when I call her 'sweetie.' But when I called a judge 'sweetie' in court the other day she got all mad.
Some women say that sexual violence is wrong. But that serial killer Aileen Wuornos killed a bunch of sexual partners.
Women say that I shouldn't grope strangers. But once a strange woman groped me at a party.
WTF, women? Make up your minds."
This is just silly.
@ Wondering
You are completely right about men's preferences, of course. I do not deny it. However, one of the many social conventions is that overall and on average, men are expected to make the first move. We are expected to be sexually aggressive (not violently so, but assertive, so to speak). This is particularly hard for geeks. I think that if you looked at it, you'd see that geeks and gamers respond far better to aggressive women than other men. It relieves them of the stress of doing what they know they aren't much good at. Aggressive men might see it as encroaching on what they do naturally and respond worse. I have no science for that, it's just a guess based on my friends, geeky and otherwise.
Not CA:
"Sexism" as an issue is generally owned by the hard-left Marxist theorist types."
Jesus cripes. NO.
ZK:
"I can understand, after having been in multiple arguments about if Margaret Atwood is a sexist for writing The Handmaiden's Tale,"
You are hanging out with some very strange people if they think THE anti-sexist novel of the 20th century was sexist.
Sorrykb:
'I'm picturing the "socially awkward nature preserve," but done "Wild Kingdom" style with the hapless Jim and a net. (Yes, I'm dating myself by mentioning this.)'
HA. I watched the real one with Marlin Perkins!
I could not get through all the thread. Apologies. I would ask people to go back to the near-top and reread Irk's post. Far too many women have put up with this endless stream of crap since childhood. Perhaps we are 'sensitive.' just like the poor nerdy Geeks.
@ Ken
I'm not saying any behavior which results in sex is ok. I'm saying that it's hard to eradicate. Anything which results in sex is going to be hard to eradicate, hence prostitution. And I'm using it to explain the cognitive dissonance of men who cannot see why their use of behavior which is fine in other men and other situations consistently fails, and is called "creepy". This is social convention and for better or worse, we must all learn to walk these lines. I did. I am not excusing the behavior, and I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to explain. For what it's worth, I think a guy tossing a girl over his shoulder and hauling her off to his room was worrying enough to check in on and make sure everything was kosher. Lets just say that had she wanted to leave, he couldn't have stopped her, restrained as he was.
The simple thing is, the first person to make an advance never knows if it is welcome until after they do it. To the degree that men go first, and women expect it, we must learn to navigate that minefield. But as I said above, the use of terms like "creepy" to encompass wide swaths of behavior from the completely innocuous (or misunderstood) to the totally criminal does no one any favors, except those trying to demonize wide swaths of male behavior.
Ken –
It's a legitimate argument. Societal rules are, in fact, whatever society agrees upon. The only evidence we have of what the rules are is how people behave and how people respond to it. There's not a book somewhere you can consult to determine what the appropriate behavior is; you just either know it or don't. And even if you know it, it can change on you without any warning.
We do, in fact, emulate other people's behavior, in order to learn how to behave. In thirty years are -you- going to be the creepy person who didn't update their behavior to new societal norms? Or are you just engaged in motivated reasoning here and giving spectacularly bad advice?
(That's not to say you shouldn't treat people as individuals, but you should treat them as members of society before you get to know them as individuals, which is exactly that aspect of social interaction we're talking about here. For all intents and purposes, people -should- be treated as monolithic at that point in social interaction. To do otherwise would be… well, creepy.)
@Tarrou: "…I think a lot of it really is that nerds saw this crazy thing work one time, and they want to give it a whirl…"
You are absolutely right. However.
Part of trying to repeat a trick that you saw requires a willingness to accept the consequences. If I watched "Hackers" and tried to write a virus, most nerds would guffaw and say "That was never gonna work", but will try hitting on a girl using a Han Solo line.
There's two more pieces that are a chunk of this as well:
1) They don't see the complexity. They see someone say something witty, and don't see the nuances (eye contact, faint smiles, whatever) that cue "It's now ok to do that".
2) They don't see "girls" (women) as people. I don't mean that in as horrible a way as it sounds (although can be). They see women as being "other" so they can't sympathize so they see them as objects.
Once you realize that whatever gender you're interested in thinks verrrry much the same that you do (as long as we're still dealing with humans), you're most of the way home – Ohm and all you need after that is "as long as you remember individual variations". Oh, and "Just because you luuuuurve them, they don't have to luuuuurve you "Oh, and also….wait! there's more, you just have to remember to never, EVER touch the History Era*static*
–signal lost–
FWIW, two posts about how not to be a creeper: here and here.
I don't find them particularly inscrutable or unfair.
Here's the thing: life as an adult is about accepting consequences. If some people want to use aggressive "strategies" and come-ons they have seen or heard about, they're going to have to live with the social consequences. I don't get the sentiment that they should be protected from those consequences.
Also a propos.
@ David W
Oh thank goodness, apologies mate!! The internet is a daaaark place sometimes, and I've ventured a bit too far today…. I'm also having a bit of trouble with the threading down here in the comment section, so all apologies on my part. (See I mention making someone feel uncomfortable….and here's my ensuing mortification…!)
I think your comment referring to "no evidence" just hit a nerve that was already raw from my internet spelunking. I needed an internet palate cleanser I think!
I don't think it is prudent to paint anyone with a broad brush, and I do love me some geekmen. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that there are no false accusations of assault/creeping/what have you, but here's a personal anecdote (less indicative of geek culture but just culture in general):
the only way to prove that something out of the ordinary happened to me once was the handprint I left on my assaulter's face after he grabbed my ass. I was in jeans, and in such a crowded space, no one seemed to notice. (Only a friend when they saw the steam coming out of my ears and nose) And yes, I'm ashamed that I did that, but I was young and completely unable to fathom someone else's unwelcome hands on my body. He called me a bitch and threatened to get security. I completely rationally panicked and GTFO. There's no real resource for "What to do when you are assaulted" (Although that scalzi blog helps!) I was afraid no one would believe me, I had no proof, no one saw it, and the assaulter was part of a much bigger group. (In addition to the already mentioned fact that his face had a pink print matching my hand size.)
I guess the point of this is, these things DO happen.
But seriously, I'm sorry if someone condemned you because of your gender, but I'd also posit they really weren't such great people anyway. Regardless of what your sexual orientation is, the world is much richer for the mix of us all together, and to exclude someone because of what they've got in their pants seems like a terribly limiting way to live.
Now I'm trying to think of a witty t-shirt that says something about not caring about what you've got in your pants…..I think that's enough internet for today!
""A thought for the girls. You control how men act around you."
No. A million Nos. I am not responsible for your behavior. You are. I am responsible for my own. That line of reasoning is really scary."
If you aren't providing clear, unambiguous feedback, you're part of the problem. If someone offends you, say so clearly and, if it seems necessary, explain why. If you remain silent and just complain about it later, nothing is improved. Now, speaking promptly and clearly serves two purposes… it conveys negative reinforcement to negative behavior (on their part), and it gives him a chance at rebuttal if you are actually in the wrong. Either way, communication is improved.
…Blockquote fail
@OngChotwI:
"Do conventions nowadays have a video and test online…of ideas on appropriate praise so they don't instantly come off as a creeper or sexual harasser?"
I can give you a UNIVERSAL RULE that will work in at least most of the Western World. (I can't vouch for anywhere else).
To Give Praise Without Looking Like A Creeper:
1) Meet the persons gaze
2) Smile in a friendly manner and say "That's a marvelous (Insert Term)*!"
3) Accept any response with a gracious nod. Just smile and raise your eyebrows if you don't know how to nod graciously.
4) Walk. Away. (Or continue what you were doing before you saw the person)
*Any other short compliment that does not include references to primary or secondary sexual characteristics is also likely acceptable.
I could explain it in detail, but I do feel it should be pretty elementary.
I'll also note that one of the cons I attend actually does have panels on flirting, and various similar subjects.
Your question about the UK Kilted Wedding thing is as ridiculous on it's face as your comment about an "obscure game"…Hmph.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101107004348AALCvHi
@JamesPollack
This is swell in theory. Except people who actually do this get whined at for being "bitchy" and "oversensitive" and "always offended" and "touchy."
Also: there are plenty of times where no "rebuttal" is invited or needed. If I come up to a woman and say "you really have a great ass," she is under no obligation to help me along in my journey of self-discovery in which I find out that some people don't like that, and she is under no obligation to ask for, and then sit through, my lengthy and indignant self-defense about how it is perfectly rational for me to assume an acceptable percentage of women will like it when I say that.
People emotionally attach themselves to the subcultures of which they're a member. When someone points out problems with that culture, even if the problems are true and something that no reasonable person should ever have grounds to defend, they feel threatened and lash out at the outsider.
Is it rational? No, of course not. But it's a thing that people do. It's one of the most common human behaviors on display; if you look for it, you'll see it hundreds of times a day, everywhere.
The reason the gaming sexism thing draws more volume is pretty much "men who play video games" is the largest group of people on the internet.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but how are both of these facts not immediately obvious to you?
shoot, I forgot to link the Everyday Sexism Project:
http://www.everydaysexism.com/
or
@EverydaySexism
The real problem with conversations about "creepy" is that its so slippery… the exact same behavior is "creepy" or not depending on who's doing it. If THAT guy wants to do it, that's OK, but if any of THOSE guys do it, that's creepy (with a large variety of specific actions substitutable for "it", ranging from "look in my direction" to "handle my personal personal regions".) Of course, WHEN a suggestion arrives can also be either in or outside of the "creepy" range. Knowing whether or not an advance (or just act of personal familiarity) will be welcomed or not is difficult for the best of us, and holding us to impossible standards satisfies nobody. Since traditionally all responsibility for initiative is upon the man, so is all the risk of offense.
@James Pollock
Your post at 5:20p, is CLEARLY victim blaming. Women are taught from a young age that if they are treated badly by men, it is their fault. They are taught to be meek. When men attack, we are taught that we caused it, or at the very least, we encouraged it, or if it must be said, we did not deter it.
NO.
YOU are blaming the victim. Responsiblity for assault is on the perpetrator, not the victim.
Your comments are the exact reason women DON'T speak up, instead, panic and run and won't come forward. THAT perpetuates the problem.
When I was sexually assaulted, I was too young (yeah, younger…nope, still younger)to say no, and the people I trusted most to do it for me failed me. I had no frame of reference to tell my rapist no.
To this day, my rapist is free. Thirty years later? I doubt I was his last victim.
I did NOT encourage him. I did not incite him. And by not telling him "no" in clear and uncertain terms, I was not part of the problem.
I was raped. By a man with more physical power and more authority than I had. I said nothing. I made myself safe by keeping silent until he could not physically retaliate against me.
The responsibility for THAT lies on my rapist. Not on me.
@Ken –
To get back to the theme of your questions, I submit these possible explanations for so much angst.
1. Double standards – LOTS of double standards
2. Emotional reactions to the subject of rape/sexual assault/gender-based harassment are not monolithic even within genders. Some men and women both will support the victim; some men and women both will support the aggressor.
3. How often does sexual harassment/assault TRULY occur in the school/workplace? Or, turning it around, how often is sexual harassment/assault in the eye of the beholder? I submit that that happens way more than we'd like to admit, even to ourselves.
4. Political correctness and sexism/counter-sexism are too closely intertwined with one another.
5. A lot of the discussion of the subject seems unavoidably laden with emotionally charged language.
6. Our culture seems to be having a hard time settling on how to cope with the subject of sex in general. And finally,
7. Thin skins generally.
@NotClaudeAkins:
You've anti-Godwinned the thread. You still lose. At least, you lose all credibility.
@Ken — I'm both glad and sorry that you posted on this. Sorry because I'm a semi-regular poster on FreeThoughtBlogs and I'm getting tired of it, and glad because it's still merits discussion. I'm a bit of a nerd myself (what other kind of person hurls pumpkins for fun?) but I'd never do some of the stuff I'm hearing about. Not to mention harrassing someone for two years for the heinous crime of saying "Guys, don't do that."
Off topic, Ken, thanks for the e-mail this morning about my banning problem. I'm SO glad that I'm finally able to read Popehat! We can haz new Prenda thread, pleeze?
Ken posted some helpful links on how not to be a creeper.
For the tl;dr folks, here's another quick reference:
1. Assume that no one wants to be assaulted.
2. Assume that people want to be treated with respect.
3. Go to 1. Repeat.
@James Pollack: Saying things like “If you aren't providing clear, unambiguous feedback, you're part of the problem” is a textbook example of the problem: women do not exist to train you to be a decent person — that's your responsibility.
"If you aren't providing clear, unambiguous feedback, you're part of the problem. If someone offends you, say so clearly and, if it seems necessary, explain why. If you remain silent and just complain about it later, nothing is improved. Now, speaking promptly and clearly serves two purposes… it conveys negative reinforcement to negative behavior (on their part), and it gives him a chance at rebuttal if you are actually in the wrong. Either way, communication is improved."
No. Again, a million Nos. First, you are talking about reaction to a behavior. The problematic behavior has already happened at this point. I am not responsible for anyone's behavior but my own. Saying women are responsible for men's behavior is scary. So, my skirt was too short, or I went to a party without a male friend, or a group of my women friends and I went to a bar? And so I'm responsible for the behavior of the men who try to harass me? Hell no.
Also, I have never been quiet about people being assholes to me (unless I felt unsafe in doing so at that time), men or women. That hasn't stopped continuing asshole behavior aimed at me in the future by other assholes. And I have always been called a bitch or told I was overreacting or a feminazi or frigid or humorless or a myriad of other insults when I have. So, yeah. Don't make this women's responsibility. Each person is responsible for their own behavior. Do not abdicate responsibility. Do not tell me I'm part of the problem if I was silent when I felt unsafe.
Or, you know, what Ken and Oh, Hell No said.
Tarrou, your explanation might make sense if it was only non-nerd men I encountered who had a problem with me coming onto them. It was not. Nerd men (not all, just the ones I encountered) are included in that group who reacted badly. I think you're doing that thing we nerds like to do where we try to logic our way into a solution to a problem or explain away points we've considered and dismissed, in this case: a prediction of human dating behavior. Treating people as individuals with personal likes and dislikes is what I've settled on as the only logical approach.
@chris Adams Thank you. I went to my scared (and scarred, such as it is) place when I posted, but you say it so much more eloquently.
Replace the lawn with patio brick so you just have to hose off any mess.
Nice to see a few souls here not only get it but in a very succinct way. While the the rest go out of their way to rationalize and excuse the crap in very long winded faux intellectual ways. There is a reason why I have said No Fucking More to geek culture and it's infantile bullshit.
@James Pollock: "the exact same behavior is "creepy" or not depending on who's doing it"
I _know_!! It so *@&#& unfair!!!!! I mean I was at a business function the other night and I saw this guy come up and punch our CEO in the arm and yell "you old asshole" and he was laughing and everyone was laughing and I wanted to have everyone laugh and make my CEO like me cos I know he'd like me if he got to know me so I went up and punched him even harder and yelled "you asshole" but then they dragged me out an I got fired and WHY!??!?
WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY???????
Stupid CEO. It all his fault.
*aaaaand CUT!*
Yeah, I know it’s a little overdone, but as Dogbert says: "sometime sarcasm helps us to see things more clearly".
It's not awkwardness. Most of us (women, men too, I imagine) know awkward when we see it. It's the guy that won't stop trying to put an arm around you when you say, "Stop that". It's the guy that follows you around all day and all the next day, staring at you. It's the ones who, after you've said, "no", "not interested", "go away" and "Leave me the hell alone!" who then follow you so they can "apologize". I don't have to listen to or accept your apology. No, you don't deserve a pat on the head for "apologizing" especially when I've said, "leave me alone". Go. Away.
Being a woman means that if I go to play at a chess tournament, I'd better find somewhere outside the skittles room to try and plan my match because I'll have guys asking me out, offering to buy me a soda, trying to touch my hair. If I go to a maker-space, I'm not going to get much work done because I'll be too busy saying, "no, I'm not tense and really don't want a shoulder rub". If I go to a con, it's checking to see how many people are on the elevator, staying out of rooms I can't easily remove myself from, and saying, "no!" a lot–no, don't grab my ass, no, don't grab my breast, no, I don't want you fondling any part of my body. Jesus H. Christ, isn't/shouldn't that be apparent to any adult as unacceptable behavior? And I'm not even one of the poor souls cosplaying–I'm there in jeans and t-shirt.
I read a lot of, "Well, boys will be boys…*masculine chuckle", but think about it–what if it was you mom? Your sister? Your girlfriend, your daughter, your wife, a female friend? What then? No big deal, right? "Yeah, honey, he grabbed your tit, but who can blame him? Hey, guy! You've got good taste!" *boggles*
I swear, the next time I hear some guy asking if I was really, really, ultra-emphatically clear to some offensive guy (and I think, "Leave me the fuck alone!" in raised tones should be reasonably clear), I'm going to start wearing a steel gauntlet and punching the offender in the nuts. That should be *perfectly* clear.
P.S. Saying "hey nice tits, I want to fuck you" to woman on the street (as a total stranger said to me one day near my office) is not OK.
And no, James Pollack, I did not respond other than to get the hell out of there as quickly as possible. And I'm sorry you don't understand why I would not respond directly, but… whether something like this happens in the middle of the afternoon in downtown L.A., or at a crowded convention, you're already feeling humiliated and alone and you don't know if it's safe to speak up, because (as Ken pointed out) look how people react. (And as Ken also said, I have no obligation to correct someone else's apparently inability to not be an asshole.)
First off, +1 to what Orphan, Evelyn, and David W have said.
The movement against "sexual harassment" these days does indeed define pretty much every man as a rape supporter. It is, in fact, nothing less than all-out cultural warfare against men and masculinity. The "locker room mentality" has as much right to exist in the world as you do.
And it's not merely a debate over the merits of behaviors, either: both government law* and the rules of work places and schools have become so biased that a mere accusation with no evidence can get a guy's life ruined, get him kicked out of his home (even if he owns it) and his job, with no real chance to defend himself.
Under those conditions, every discussion of the topic is a threat. It's like getting stopped and asked your views on race 100 years ago by a group of KKK. Pretending that it isn't so, and that there is still a functioning marketplace of ideas is like pretending that there is such a thing as a voluntary encounter with the police: saying it only throws away your credibility.
It is the people given unfair power by these outrageous laws and policies who need to be told "check your privilege," not men.
All laws and policies regarding sex need to be rolled back to about what they were in 1970 — even if it means that some "quid pro quo" behavior will once again be out there. Then we need to legalize the sex trade, so that those women who (in my view) provoked the conflict in the first place by acting as a cartel will face needed competition.
@Jonathan Kamens: You don't get it. The so-called victims of so-called harassment are usually the bad guys.
—
* not just the "sexual harassment" law but also VAWA and the various laws named after children killed by crazy people — and the crusade that put them in place, which commonly leads juries to assume guilt and forces judges to over-punish.
@Tarrou: The simple thing is, the first person to make an advance never knows if it is welcome until after they do it.
I can't know if I'll get an affirmative response, but there are ways to ask someone out that never (or, almost never) cause offense. There are also ways that almost always cause offense and (and this is the annoying bit), ways that sometimes do and sometimes don't or for some women and not others or in some environments and not others or work for George Clooney and not for you. Bummer about that, but the solution is simple: Avoid this gray area.
If, however, you interact with the person as a person, talk with them, show genuine interest that has nothing to do with possibly seeing them naked, IOW, put in some actual work, then I submit that it is very unlikely that making an advance will cause actual offense. It may not work, of course, but that's the price you pay for not being George Clooney.
Part of the problem is that people look at this (easy) gray area and think that just because it works some of the time or for some woman or when some men do it, that it's a good approach. It isn't. Cut it out.
For those not entirely clear on the meaning of Pseu's rant, "quid pro quo" refers to demanding sexual favors as a condition of keeping or getting a job. In other words, as I understand it, Pseu is advocating rolling back sexual harassment laws even if it permits some employers to demand sex as a condition of employment.
Comments:
1. Behold your allies.
2. I, for one, think it might be a good thing if emerging social norms make it harder for people like Pseu to reproduce.
You could equally ask the question: why do even the slightest offenses against women raise so much anger? You yourself linked a video of a woman trying to specify that people shouldn't hit on her because it makes her "uncomfortable", then moments later complaining that women are viewed as overly sensitive. Women are weak. We know this because there's a movement dedicated to trying to push against all the advantages men have built up using their superior strength. And to the extent to which this is women showing some strength or men showing a bit of chivalry this is an admirable undertaking. But much of it is the meta-meta-meta-chatter of weaklings who want everything to change to suit their delicate sensitivities. The geek culture is certainly stunted, but these people are even MORE stunted, since they still expect others to accept them and be nice to them simply for existing. And in understanding that this is simply false, the stunted male geeks are WAY ahead of them in emotional development.
At this point I'm guessing we got linked by someplace seriously disturbed.
It's because the war of the sexes is still ongoing, while the battle over racism is largely ended. (There's still a battle over covert racism and what qualifies, but almost everyone recognizes that overt racism in the public sphere is a no-no.) The "creepers" and creeper-lovers are losing, but they haven't given up yet, so they're desperately pushing back and scorching the earth and waiting for the day an army of oppressed men rises up to defeat the Social Justice Feminist hordes.
No, the issue is simply that fandom is one of the last bastions of the douchebag. I am a serious fan and so I feel comfortable in saying that this is the case.
Older white mail geeks tend to be libertarians (as their formative years were spent reading Heinlein and Rand and _Ender's Game_ and so on), so they feel that if the world would only pay attention to them the world would be so much better.
That said, their political fantasies are not the problem. The problem is the same as with any male-dominated group (bodybuilder, gun-enthusiasts, sports fans, etc.) women are marginalized and excluded from the club. Creepers and sucn aren't restricted to fandom, we hear about it more in fan and skeptic circles because women actually make up most of these groups these days and so they feel more comfortable speaking out. I suspect that the incidence of creeperism is less likely in fan groups these days than in, say… NASCAR fans just because the female fandom fans are a larger percentage of their group than racing fans, but we don't realize it because the douchebag geeks are very noisy and desperately clinging to the last bastion of what they see as 'theirs'. Luckily, those people are getting old and going away.
In any case, the way to solve this problem: educate. Fans of all stripes – male, female, young, old, whatever – need to call out creepers and point out that they're doing something wrong. A lot of these guys probably don't even realize they're making someone uncomfortable. So, it needs to be explained to them. If they're doing it on purpose they need to have their deeds singled out. It's as simple as that.
I agree with Tarrou that people will want to emulate what they see working.
For me, I never felt comfortable doing that stuff. It struck me as wrong. Too many female friends complaining about behavior X made me think I should never do X — even when I saw it successful for some people. Even when those same female friends fell for X.
The result for me was not "well, I didn't have sex that night." It was many years without a date (but I never got a sexual harassment suit against me, so there's that) because there were always guys willing to do X.
Now, I've got over it. But I can understand why young nerds can feel so put upon; it seems to them that the only way to land a mate in the male-dominated realms they inhabit is to undertake behavior that, if it fails, labels them as creepy.
I have many things to say to those nerds to help them out, but that doesn't seem the topic here. I'm explaining their feelings. I'm not even saying they're right with those feelings. But those are their feelings.
There's only one sane solution to this problem, and that is to install a trampoline on your front lawn.
Ken,
I love the last paragraph and particularly the last sentence of your post! Awesome imagery that I'm sure basically expresses what the majority of folks feel on the subject.
@Boy Named Pseu: "The movement against "sexual harassment" these days does indeed define pretty much every man as a rape supporter…."
So I'm guessing the bellbottoms and polyester fumes damaged you pretty badly, so I'll try and keep this simple:
So you're claiming that the environment of ""Sexual Harassment""* is squelching debate on…waitaminute, this thread ALONE has almost 200 comments and it was started this MORNING.
What's more, almost NONE of this conversation has had anything to do with law, but with the idea that people deserve to be treated as individuals. So.
Peddle your bullshit somewhere else, sunshine.
*Please note my double quoting of your double quotes. The rest of your dominoes fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
"The movement against "sexual harassment" these days does indeed define pretty much every man as a rape supporter. It is, in fact, nothing less than all-out cultural warfare against men and masculinity. The "locker room mentality" has as much right to exist in the world as you do." – A Boy Name Psue
And here's the problem (even though I'm assuming this poster is a troll, noone can be that loathsome, right?)… lots of people think that there's a 'culture war' going on. Ooh, the gays are trying to destroy our marriage. Ooh, secularists are trying to destroy the Christian values our Christian Founding Fathers created for us to protect CHristianity (I know, I know…). OOh, the evil Obamites are coming to take our guns! OOh, the government is coming to take away all our money just to give it away to illegal immigrants! OOh, women want to be treated like PEOPLE. Oh, woe is us.
You know what – no. There is no culture war. Please go die in a fire. Thanks.
@Alan Morgan
We probably agree on most things you said, but on the one aspect of "don't treat them like you want to see them naked", I call BS. It was the epiphany of my teenage years that what I was doing wrong was befriending women. To this day, I am polite, I am respectful and I am conscientious to a fault about women. But I never, ever leave a woman I am interested in wondering whether I want to see her naked. That way lies….never seeing her naked. Getting that across in a way that leaves them wanting to see me naked has been the ongoing work of better than a decade.
@ Ken
I wasn't aware that all we had to do to win an argument was dig up the wildest human strawman on the internet and quoth "Behold your allies", but I like it.
"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" – Andrea Dworkin
Behold your allies.
"Women are taught from a young age that if they are treated badly by men, it is their fault. They are taught to be meek."
Not by me. I taught my daughter to stand up for herself. If you won't stand up for yourself, why should I take an interest?
"women DON'T speak up, instead, panic and run and won't come forward. THAT perpetuates the problem"
That was kind of my point.
"I was raped. By a man with more physical power and more authority than I had. I said nothing. I made myself safe by keeping silent until he could not physically retaliate against me.
To this day, my rapist is free. Thirty years later? I doubt I was his last victim."
Then yes, you share some culpability to his other victims, because could have been stopped had you SPOKEN UP. You chose to trade THEIR safety for YOUR safety, and that's all you.
The real problem in this communication, though, is there's a RATHER LARGE DIFFERENCE between approaching a woman at a con and raping her. (Just as there's a difference between what is expected from an adult woman and a young (nope, younger) child.
Hey, look! There's some of exactly what Ken was talking about!
Some comments from a kibbitzer:
Who starts playing a game without trying to understand the rules, or having seen one move and thinking that's how the entire game is played? That must be "extreme geeking" and as with all extreme sports, the potential negative consequences are much greater, especially for the novice.
Ken and his "hot chick loves geeky guy" phenomenon notwithstanding, most of the male nerds and geeks in my path (I'm 43) have ended up married to female nerds and geeks. (And of course, Ken's hot chick went to Stanford, so her non-nerd status deserves greater scrutiny regardless of her beauty!) My own nerd-nerd partnership included. I can't say I'm all that proficient in the fine distinctions between nerds and geeks, especially of the modern youthful varieties, but most of us manage to navigate the sexual-social waters without handprints on faces OR asses.
One last thing: I never knew a geek or a nerd who would place ALL their strategic hopes that the extremes of the dice would win the game for them; it contradicts the inherent mathematical/logical/scientific bias. So let's cut through the BS: Don't play big at the sexual game unless you're prepared to lose big; it's the most likely outcome. Everyone else should start with the basic dice.
@ Dan Weber
Thanks mate, my experience dovetails to some degree, and I see it often in friends of mine. Most of us nerds overcome our social disadvantages over time, some more than others. I had an actual written program for years. But it's never natural, which is what made us nerds in the first place.
"Saying things like “If you aren't providing clear, unambiguous feedback, you're part of the problem” is a textbook example of the problem: women do not exist to train you to be a decent person — that's your responsibility."
If womenfolk, collectively, don't want to take on the job of training menfolk how to approach them in the way(s) that please them, who will do the job? And do you have a right to complain about something not being done right if you aren't willing to do it?
"Then yes, you share some culpability to his other victims, because could have been stopped had you SPOKEN UP. You chose to trade THEIR safety for YOUR safety, and that's all you."
I knew you would look at all the clear, unambiguous feedback and rebut everyone who gave it to you for being wrong, but damn, man, blaming a rape victim for her rapist's other victims? Wow.
Dear person-wo-was-raped-as-a-young-child. You, not your rapist, are responsible for all the other rapes your rapist committed. Have a nice life!
–>Channeling James Pillock<—
Wow, that was actually painful to type.
"The problematic behavior has already happened at this point. I am not responsible for anyone's behavior but my own. Saying women are responsible for men's behavior is scary. So, my skirt was too short, or I went to a party without a male friend, or a group of my women friends and I went to a bar? And so I'm responsible for the behavior of the men who try to harass me? Hell no."
If a dog (the four-legged kind) jumps on you, and you do not want it to jump on you, you tell it "no" and swat it with a rolled-up newspaper. You do this because eventually the dog will learn that jumping up on people is not OK, and you do this not because you're mad at the dog for jumping on you, but because you want to teach the dog not to jump on people. All of the people the dog doesn't jump on are benefitted, even if you yourself are not. This has nothing to do with the length of your skirt, at a party without a male friend, or out at a bar with friends. It's true whether or not you are, in fact, female.
This rationale is also true of the two-legged dogs.
Sorry for what may end up as a double post, but this comment thread has turned too freaky to continue reading.
@ Christina
We are at the same point from different ends, I think. Obviously, asshole game is not the ideal vector of approach to most women, and even men who can pull it off don't use it on all of them. Geeks tend to be stunted socially. They're not socially useless, they're in arrested social development (and some are useless). It takes time, effort, and quite frankly in my experience, a girl willing to invest some time in a guy who is fairly incompetent socially to build the skills and confidence necessary to bring a shy nerd up to par. My first girlfriend taught me to shower every day. Seriously, I did not know that was a thing. Had she not taken a chance on a guy who couldn't even clean himself properly….who knows where I'd be today?
Many thanks to all the girls, women, and (dare I say it? Dare, dare!:cigar:) ladies who have helped shape lads like me over the years, taught us the social graces and given us hope that we could be better in the long run.
As to the issue: I just don't think the interests of women or men are served by rounding up the internet gang to bash "creepers". If women don't want to be pawed in public (and they should not be), then we should be telling men not to touch women in public. Not "don't be creepy". It's already illegal, it's a clear violation of the law and personal space, simple, easy. It's when one begins to link sexual assault to come-ons, remarks, and even glances that the whole enterprise falls apart. Define the behavior concisely, make it objective, and I think we will all be better off for it.
@Christina: Aces!
@James Pollock: "Then yes, you share some culpability to his other victims, because could have been stopped had you SPOKEN UP. You chose to trade THEIR safety for YOUR safety, and that's all you."
Really? I…almost everything I want to say here starts concerning your likely genetics, background, personal habits, and likely personal fetishes, so I'm shifting through those first.
Ok.
Done.
She shares NO culpability for someone else's actions. Maybe you should go look the word up. Not for something that happened to her, NOR to any theoretical future victims. More to the point, with the information you have been provided, you have insufficient information provided to make such a statement.
You say "I taught my daughter to stand up for herself. If you won't stand up for yourself, why should I take an interest?" So, if something traumatic happens around your daughter and she "freezes" and something bad happens because she didn't stand up for herself…what?
And _please_ don't try and tell me it's not possible – I've seen trained professionals freeze the first time they faces real "hey, someone is shooting at you" gunfire. You can train and train and you never know.
So…screw em? It's their fault? Fuck that shit.
If there is ONE measure of being a man that I have always respected, it's the one about "protecting those weaker than you" you speak for the ones that have no voice, and you fight for the ones that don't have the skills.*
(*As I got older, I realized it's not a men's measure, it's about being a decent human being, but what the hell, I don't mind a stereotype that uplifts us. :))
"I think, "Leave me the fuck alone!" in raised tones should be reasonably clear"
As do I. Likewise, I won't even try to defend the offenses listed in your first paragraph. But of
"I'll have guys asking me out, offering to buy me a soda, trying to touch my hair."
The third is battery, but the first two sound inoffensive. That is, barring evidence that you do not wish to be asked out or consume a free soda, offering these is not inherently wrong in the same what that handling any part of you without asking permission first would be.
"She shares NO culpability for someone else's actions."
No, she shares culpability for HER OWN action (or, in this case, inaction).
If you see a big spot of brake fluid on your neighbor's driveway, but don't say anything to her, and later on while she's driving the brakes fail and she mows down a dozen children in a crosswalk, she is primarily to blame, for failure to maintain the vehicle in safe, operable condition. But you ALSO have culpability, for it, even though the car is not yours, you were not driving, and you were not present at the scene of the accident.
Now, the culpability of a rape victim, particularly a very young one, for not making outcry is very low relative to the rapist, but it is not zero. It sucks and it is not at all fair, but it is what it is, and shooting the messenger doesn't change anything.
Because people recognize themselves in the creeper and harassing behaviour that you write about? Wild ass guess
@ Ian
"If there is ONE measure of being a man that I have always respected, it's the one about "protecting those weaker than you" you speak for the ones that have no voice, and you fight for the ones that don't have the skills.*"
And so I speak for the socially maladjusted who may not be able to articulate their thoughts in a constructive manner. I fight for women to understand that behind socially awkward exteriors often lie worthwhile men too shy to be seen at first glance. Because I know how it is to be bad at girls, and I know for damned sure there are those out there who would rather stigmatize normal and healthy masculinity than deal specifically with the violent deviants.
But that's not what you were talking about, was it?
I think this issue is primarily shaped by what we see as the danger, by who we see as the victim. When I hear the word "creepy", I don't think horde of construction worker wolf-whistling at women (although that happens). I think of a horde of girls whispering about the lonely skinny stringy-haired kid in the ill-fitting jeans and Iron Maiden shirt. That colors how I view the issue, and I accept that. Ken thinks immediately of sexual assault, apparently, and some commenters jump directly to forcible rape. We are not talking about the same things, which illustrates my complaint that the word is too imprecise for this conversation.
My theories for what they are worth Ken.
1) An overly emotive response is often a symptom of underlying cognitive dissonance.
2) A lot of people want to simultaneously hold the belief in individual rights and a lack of accountability for the exercise of those rights.
3) One group I have found are pretty well represented in 2) above are guys in essence uncomfortable with the changing roles of women v men who still want to be unreconstructed misogynists, just dont want to be made to feel bad about it.
4) This blog probably attracts them, because they can hear the bits they like (free speach, individual rights, prog rock, D&D) and ignore the other stuff.
5) When you explicitly draw the connection like here, you cause the cognitive dissonace to go into overdrive…hence the exaggerated anger response.
In essence, it is your constituency Ken. I see in a lot of your threads, terms thrown around like "feminazi" , "Political correctness", etc, when there is a female protagonist involved in the story.
Which sometimes is right and sometimes is code for "I want to be free to be a dick and not be made to feel bad about it." For better or worse, free speech and rights discourse is sometimes the shelter people use who actually are only interested in the principle because it gives them a shield to avoid feeling bad for being a dick,not because they actually believe in the principles themselves.
I think the above also explains your confusion sometimes about the casual or selective enthusiasm for rights advoctes for liberty. Its about the particular context dependent outcome (in their particular worldview) not the principle.
Oh. @james pollock, no, I will not share blame with my rapist for what he did to others after he raped me.
I will also not agree with your characterization of men as dogs for whom a swat on the nose or arse should suffice to teach them better. Men are not dogs. My rapist may have been a monster, but men are not dogs.
My father, my brothers, my husband, and my sons are not dogs.
They have been taught from the very youngest of ages that all life, all humans, all people are deserving of dignity and respect. They did not need to be slapped down to know this. They simply needed to be taught to treat others as they themselves should be treated.
It is on society to hold men to being human. It is on ALL of us to hold men to higher standards than dogs.
And, FWIW, I hold my dog to higher standards than you hold your fellow men.
As a nerd/geek, this is my take.
1) Everybody likes to reinforce the storyline they carry in their head about their own lives.
For instance, I like to think of myself as clever, widely knowledgeable about certain genres of entertainment, and passionate about the things I enjoy. On the darker side, somewhere deep down, I still believe I am something of an outcast – crowds are against me.
Of course I don't care about that – stupid masses! In fact I don't care to the point where my default position is to go against a crowd whether I disagree with them or not. Sure, I might call it "playing devil's advocate" but deep down I have grown to enjoy squaring off against the crowd.
Now brew all of that together and add one thread where everybody agrees. The subject is almost irrelevant. At the very least, you will see one poster (who I probably share more similarities with than I'd like to think) agreeing with everybody while pointing out why they are all being mindless sheep who don't *really* understand what they are saying. Just as likely, unfortunately, you'll see one poster or more start a fight just to fight against that eternal enemy, the Crowd – aka the Beautiful People, the Popular Kids, the Cretins, etc. because that is what feels natural.
2) A nerd's/geek's best weapons are all in their brain.
That said where can a nerd geek go to get in a fight? To test their skills and compete against their fellow humans? Or just to blow off some steam for fun?
A bar brawl? Not really strong enough for that. Or if I am strong enough, then it is beneath me.
Seducing the opposite sex? Don't have the right charm muscles. Besides, that person is not just meat for me to consume! That would be like it was for those stupid people back in grade school/high school/ college.
Debating the issues of the day at a coffee shop or other public debate?
I get kind of shy, and this could lead back to the bar brawl.
Internet forum? Now you're talkin'. Combat by words, trivia, and citations? Yes please.
But what does this have to do with creepers and harassment, you say?
(He asked in a passively condescending manner because it felt comfortable and familiar – like a very old security blanket)
3) "We have met the enemy, and he is us." -Pogo
(because I have not made even a semi-obscure cultural reference yet, and that is required to maintain my membership card))
I think if you want to truly make somebody go nuclear, to make them pull out every last defense mechanism they have, to completely low their cool and their reason, you just have to do one thing.
Make them feel, for just one short moment, that they are embodying that which they believe they fought against with everything they have for their entire lives.
In this context make the nerd/geek feel that.
1) The geek is part of the more privileged, societally bolstered, or (shudder) popular side in a fight.
2) The geek has victimized another.
3) The geek has made someone feel small for simply being who they are.
You get the idea. Merely accusing a geek of being just like the popular kids does nothing. Making them feel like they might actually *be* the in-crowd, the jocks, the cool kids…? That can mess with my head. In an ugly way.
Sure you can get the same fireworks show by accusing someone of being a bad parent. No matter what a parent's skills at parenting are, they have a lot invested feeling like a good parent. But how likely is that to happen in a discussion of sexism in RPGs, video, or wargames?
Speaking of parenthood and horrifying revelations.
"I *am* your father."
"no… No.. That's not true… THAT"S IMPOSSIBLE!!!"
Says it pretty well.
Now that is way too much introspection for me. Need to unwind. Relax.
Anybody want to debate who would win in a fight between Lensmen / Bene Gesserit / Jedi?
James Pollock: "If you see a big spot of brake fluid"
Ah, the "Quantum Butterfly" school of responsibility.
Your example is fallacious. The result is an accident that could have been averted by various other factors. There is no blame to be assessed. Again, you show very shoddy reasoning.
I could reconstruct your shoddy example to more accurately show what you are vainly trying to say. But I won't.
You provide this piss-poor example in attempt to justify telling someone that something that they had no control over, is in some way their fault.
I find that reprehensible.
I'm pretty much at the point that your opinion has no further value to me. So…as you were.
Deathpony,
Your assertions would make sense if male nerds were less progressive and more unreconstructed than "normal" males. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and your theories (if I may condense them uncharitably) are bullshit.
I don't think CD means what you think it means.
GEEKS are the ones uncomfortable with the changing roles of women? Surely you jest. Geeks have the most to gain and the least to lose from this shift.
And I have never seen anyone conflate misogyny and prog rock before, that is a new one.
Hey Ken, behold your allies.
"Also, I have never been quiet about people being assholes to me (unless I felt unsafe in doing so at that time), men or women. That hasn't stopped continuing asshole behavior aimed at me in the future by other assholes."
That's because too many other people aren't ALSO acting to correct assholish behavior. It's a slow process, but if enough people participate, it eventually gains traction. Look, for example, at the effect social disapproval has had on smoking. It started with a few people willing to stand up and say "Why, yes, I DO mind if you light up. Thank you for asking." I'm sure those early pioneers were called bitches or that they were overreacting or any of a number of other insults…
Compared to what the suffragettes had to, well, suffer, it's trivial; compared to the way things should be it's not; but change is usually difficult to achieve and the early pursuit is usually the hardest.
I'd also like to suggest that in many (but not all) cases the accused are indeed innocent of "harassment" in the sense of discriminating against women. As we pointed out previously, many of the people being discussed are social misfits. They are rude, crude, and insulting to men as well as women. Few men would complain of "harassment" by another man. It is a sign of weakness and culturally frowned upon. Being told by a guy to S–k my D–k, when he defeats me in a game would result in my calling him a jerk, or If I were aggressive it would result in a nice retainer for some attorney here, but it wouldn't be considered harassment. Telling a women the same thing is harassment because cultural norms dictate "safe" conduct between the sexes. For those who don't understand those norms, they think only in terms of "equality". In the mind of many of these harassers, they are innocent–They were no bigger asshats to the women than they were to the men.
@Tarrou
Thanks for your reasoned response, I'll just crawl back in my cave like a good whipped cur and enjoy the show :)
Tarrou: "But that's not what you were talking about, was it?"
Oh, but it IS! As I've said _many_ times, in this very thread – I WAS that kid (It was "Judas Priest" tho. My best friend was the one in the "Maiden" shirt.).
I've sat on panels, I've advised geeky friends, I do con security not so I could bust people, but so I could help the con be just that little bit more fun. To provide the border between Anarchy and Chaos (ok, it's a con, but still :))
But there's the key, I want to help the folks who don't "get it". You don't do that by leaving them to carry on as they were. Leaving someone to keep doing something wrong is one of the worst things you can do.
This thread has been FULL of people posting advice for the socially maladroit. That's help.
"Oh. @james pollock, no, I will not share blame with my rapist for what he did to others after he raped me."
If only wanting something very strongly made it so. Either way, if you choose to keep it to yourself (until you want to score points in a largely meaningless debate, of course) it isn't my problem, by your choice.
"My father, my brothers, my husband, and my sons are not dogs.
They have been taught from the very youngest of ages that all life, all humans, all people are deserving of dignity and respect."
Thank you for making my point. They were properly trained, and thus do not offend. It IS easier to teach these things to the young, but some people just weren't taught when it would be easy.
"FWIW, I hold my dog to higher standards than you hold your fellow men."
Do tell. Wait. Don't. It has as much relevance to unwanted come-ons at geek culture conventions as anything else you've offered.
InnocentBystander: "Being told by a guy to S–k my D–k, when he defeats me in a game would result in my calling him a jerk, or If I were aggressive it would result in a nice retainer for some attorney here, but it wouldn't be considered harassment."
Fun thought experiment: Find a friend who plays a sport at the college or higher level and have him shout "suck my dick" at the next team they defeat. Let's all watch.
That IS harrassment. Or as I refer to people online who do that: "Well helLO Mr. Sportsmanship". It's online and harder to deal with.
@James Pollock:
Let me ask you a question that might make you a little uncomfortable. Do you fear being raped? Do you take steps, daily, to make sure that you can get out of a situation if it looks like you might get raped if you don't run quickly and effectively? If not, why not?
I was raped when I was ten. The man who raped me (age 40) threatened me and it was three years before I told anyone, even my mother, what had happened. I was afraid. Have you ever experienced this fear firsthand? If you haven't, do you really think it's reasonable to explain to someone what their personal boundaries should be?
I was followed on a dark street one night near my college and had to seek refuge with campus police, and when I came home late that night some of my male friends poked fun at me for overreacting. After all, nothing actually happened. If he had raped me, then I might have had a case, right? Otherwise I'm just being jumpy to some poor guy who was walking home.
I have had a male coworker grope me in an attempt to silence me at work because I spoke up when someone's inappropriate touching and behavior made me uncomfortable. (And yes, I formally reported him–and I only informally reported the first guy because he wouldn't knock it off even after being told that I didn't appreciate what he was doing.
Guy #2 happened to overhear me talking to Guy #1 and decided to corner me in the breakroom, touch me inappropriately, and ask me if I was going to go after him too now? I did. Is that active enough for you?)
If you don't see some way in which it's exasperatingly dense that you're suggesting that the problem is that women don't speak up enough then I don't know what to tell you.
On the one side you're talking about men feeling bad about women having negative reactions to them. Or men feeling bad that they can't have sex with women.
On the other side you have women who are or have been threatened, belittled, or assaulted, and then when they speak up it happens more. But they should go ahead and speak up because hey, how are the poor guys supposed to know?
Here's why you're wrong: rapists don't come with a post-it note on their foreheads saying "avoid me." If I think there's a chance that a man will assault me, I'll act to avoid that first and consider hurt feelings second. Because the possibility that someone's feelings might get hurt does not trump my right to ensure my bodily autonomy. It is not my job to cater to possibly hurt feelings if I think my safety is on the line. Presuming that it is my job is basically classically sexist.
When a woman calls someone a creeper, what she means is "you make me feel afraid for my safety." And, given that anywhere from 1 in 6 women to 2 in 5 (in Canada) have been raped before, some multiple times, this fear is not so out of bounds. What you are suggesting is that women should put aside that fear and speak up anyway, even when it would put us in danger, so that men can have a more convenient life and not have to do tough personal work because it's hard.
^ Perfect illustration of my point right here. One side worries about ostracism. The other side is afraid of being raped or assaulted or having their bodily integrity transgressed. The concerns of #2 trump the concerns of #1. Does it mean that #1's plight isn't sad? No it does not. But that does not mean we should go back to making sure women take care of other people's feelings first and their own safety second.
@James Pollock
It has more relevance than the utter dren you've been posting for the past while.
In fact, by your reasoning, it IS your fault, not ALL of it…Never mind, while it might be fun, scoring points off you is like squashing a fly with a Buick.
"The result is an accident that could have been averted by various other factors. There is no blame to be assessed. Again, you show very shoddy reasoning."
Could have been averted, but wasn't. If there is no blame to be assessed from negligence, the law of tort is greatly overdue for overhaul.
"I could reconstruct your shoddy example to more accurately show what you are vainly trying to say."
No, I doubt that very, VERY much.
"You provide this piss-poor example in attempt to justify telling someone that something that they had no control over"
She had no control over whether she made outcry or not? And you're pissing about MY opinion of women? For shame, sir. For shame.
"I'm pretty much at the point that your opinion has no further value to me."
I'm crushed. Some random Internet jackass with reading comprehension issues doesn't value my opinion? Woe is me.
"But there's the key, I want to help the folks who don't "get it". You don't do that by leaving them to carry on as they were. Leaving someone to keep doing something wrong is one of the worst things you can do."
Hey, you DO care! That was my original point! I knew you'd come around.
@James Pollock: "I'm crushed. Some random Internet jackass with reading comprehension issues doesn't value my opinion? Woe is me."
And?
"Hey, you DO care! That was my original point! I knew you'd come around."
And you say *I* have reading comprehension issues? So you just skipped the first 150 posts on this?
@Kat "Perfect illustration of my point right here. One side worries about ostracism. The other side is afraid of being raped or assaulted or having their bodily integrity transgressed. The concerns of #2 trump the concerns of #1. Does it mean that #1's plight isn't sad? No it does not. But that does not mean we should go back to making sure women take care of other people's feelings first and their own safety second."
Repeated for truth.
Me:
"The solution is the same as it is in real life… immediate correction of the offending behavior, repeated as necessary."
You:
"You don't do that by leaving them to carry on as they were. Leaving someone to keep doing something wrong is one of the worst things you can do"
Yeah. Those are TOTALLY different.
@James Pollock:
They are totally different because the people who are speaking up are totally different. In one, the onus is on the victim of the behavior to stop said behavior all by herself. In the other, the onus is on the people in the culture at large to make it clear that this shit will not fly. Basically, one is about victim blaming and the other is about changing culture.
As for why the onus should not be on the victim, see my latest comment.
@James Pollock – You beat me to it! You're right we really weren't that far apart until, I agreed with your posts right up until:
"If womenfolk, collectively, don't want to take on the job of training menfolk how to approach them in the way(s) that please them, who will do the job? And do you have a right to complain about something not being done right if you aren't willing to do it?"
This seems to my Reading Comprehension Limited™ mind to be exactly the opposite stance you had been taking up to that point. You're basically saying that it's a individual mans responsibility for his actions…but it's women who are responsible for teaching him.
Which, if you'll pardon my saying so, is BS.
If my actions are my responsibility, then they're MINE, not "Well, they're MINE, except, you know I was savaged by a Turbot and that's why…."
Secondly, your BAFFLING attempt to allocate blame to someone speaking of being a victim of rape.
Again, seemingly completely at odds with your previous positions.
If I am assaulted by someone who solicited me for kinky sex and I, being a respectable normal guy, am too embarrassed to report it, I am not responsible for that person's subsequent assaults. That's THEIR actions.
To further crush the whole "well, if you had reported it" fallacy, I shall stand mutely pointing at the Catholic Church. I assume you need no explanation.
And while I appreciate your posting my LAST comment as a point of agreement, allow me to direct you to the one from 10 hours ago:
Ian – "While I can sympathize with your concerns about the lack of social tolerance for the socially inept I think you're misreading somewhat – the question here is – should the "Socially Awkward" be treated like a nature preserve? Where we watch them and allow them to go on their way? Or do we treat them responsible human beings?"
As someone who works with a lot of socially awkward people (go ahead and tell me scientists are not socially awkward) and is halfway socially awkward herself, saying harassing behavior is a function of being socially awkward is rather unfair. Yes, we sometimes don't pick up on social cues, but almost all people know that commenting on a sexual characteristic or groping a person is not acceptable. Furthermore, you are responsible for your own actions. Nobody "makes you do it" or "asks for it". Personal responsibility is what is lacking in the angry people not an overabundance of awkwardness.
Last week, interestingly right after reading the PUA post, I was walking into work when a guy yelled at me "Nice Boobies!". I gave him the middle finger. As far as I know the middle finger says under no uncertain terms that I did not appreciate what you said. Yet he still yelled back "What?! That was a compliment!". I'm sorry; He knew exactly what he was doing. I imagine every single woman he said that to could flip him off and he still would say it. Why? Because it has nothing to do with us women and everything to do with him as a person. Sometimes an asshole is an asshole. (For the record, the guy yelling at me was headed to the methadone clinic. I'm guessing he has waaaay more experience with women than most of the people in my building or even my department, but probably less experience respecting them.)
"In one, the onus is on the victim of the behavior to stop said behavior all by herself. In the other, the onus is on the people in the culture at large to make it clear that this shit will not fly."
How is "culture at large" to know which "shit will not fly" if the "victim" does not speak up? (Here "victim" appears in quotes because having someone attempt to start a conversation with you does not make you a victim).
Are men supposed to somehow magically know what women are thinking? Because, if we were capable of that, we wouldn't HAVE this problem.
@Kat: "In the other, the onus is on the people in the culture at large to make it clear that this shit will not fly. Basically, one is about victim blaming and the other is about changing culture."
Oh CRAP, now I'm actually defending him. Kill me now.
I agree with his original statement in that I would consider EVERYONE a part of correcting that behaviour to, as you so succinctly put it: "make it clear that this shit will not fly".
If we're still talking blaming the victim, then obviously not.
@W. Ian Blanton, I think I see where you're headed with this.
Yes, it's good for people who have had unacceptable behavior done toward them to speak up and say it's wrong. (Witness me: speaking up.) But I disagree that it's someone's moral duty to speak directly to the transgressor and try to get that person to change his mind. For one thing, expecting people to do this could put them in actual danger. For another, it's just shitty to expect people who have been hurt by bad actors to then turn around with a surge of kindliness towards the bad actors and educate them on how not to ruin their own lives.
Don't get me wrong, if you feel that actual surge of kindliness then it's great if you act on it. Many people have taken advice given in this spirit, acted on it, and improved their lives. But I don't consider it a moral imperative and it's definitely not the most important factor under consideration here.
@James Pollock: "Are men supposed to somehow magically know what women are thinking? Because, if we were capable of that, we wouldn't HAVE this problem."
Actually – yes…we would. Because the REAL problem, said WAAAAAAY up there in the other comment and as recently as @Nate's post a few minutes ago. The REAL problem is not the socially inept nerds who offend by accident. We just want them off the field, dating happily with happy partners.
The real problem is the people who, even with CLEAR indications that What They Are Doing Is Not Right, go ahead anyways. (Go on back up into the thread and read them)
"What Part Of Fucking 'NO' didn't you understand" doesn't really require magic.
@Kat: "But I disagree that it's someone's moral duty to speak directly to the transgressor and try to get that person to change his mind."
Exactly. For all the reasons you state above. It just cannot happen sometimes.
@James Pollock: "Are men supposed to somehow magically know what women are thinking? Because, if we were capable of that, we wouldn't HAVE this problem."
There's no mind-reading required. There's this little thing, which everyone here (professed geeks/nerds and otherwise) seems to be managing pretty well: advanced language skills. "Hello, may I compliment you on your convention attire?" "Hello, I heard your comment in the Q&A and wondered if I could talk with you a bit more about it?" "Hello, I've never done this before, I know you can tell I'm a painfully shy dork with no experience whatsoever, but there's a first time for everything, may I buy you a drink?" If you don't ask for permission first, you're likely to be asking for forgiveness later.
Because the necessary corollary to "what part of NO don't you understand?" is always respectfully soliciting a YES answer to your question, and moving from there.
"This seems to my Reading Comprehension Limited™ mind to be exactly the opposite stance you had been taking up to that point."
It's not.
"You're basically saying that it's a individual mans responsibility for his actions…"
Yeah.
"but it's women who are responsible for teaching him."
It's a women who are responsible for teaching him IF THEY WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. This is true in every context, not just in the "geek culture male person approaching a female person" one. For example, if your local grocery store does not carry your favorite brand of ice cream, it is up to you to explain that the store is not getting what it wants (an ice-cream sale) because there is something wrong with its approach (they offer the wrong flavors). If the store wants to sell ice cream to you badly enough, they will change their ways and offer the flavor you prefer to buy… but this is very unlikely to happen if you don't tell the store what it is you want. If your approach to the "my grocery store's ice-cream section lacks what I want" problem is to NOT tell the store what they're doing wrong, and instead to get together with all your friends and complain how bad the grocery store's ice-cream selection is, well… you're contributing to your own lack of happiness regarding ice-cream sales, and, as a disinterested third party, I've no sympathy for you, even though the store is entirely responsible for what types of ice cream it sells. See? If women at geek culture events are dis-satisfied with the type of approaches men at the event are taking in attempting to start conversations with them, they should tell those men why they're getting shot down. Over time, those men will learn either to time or phrase their approaches better, or refine their targeting algorithms to increase the chances that they're attempting to chat up someone who might actually be receptive to their advances, or both… to the benefit of all involved… those women who do not want to be bothered by inept approaches, those women who do not want to be bothered by inept approaches but might welcome better-executed approaches, and the men making the approaches. It's win-win-win.
"If my actions are my responsibility, then they're MINE".
Yes. And if I want your actions to be different, it is up to ME to explain what different actions I want, and convince them that you want to take those different actions. And if I don't tell you that I want you to act differently, I have limited rights to complain about what those acts are. If no one told person A that we don't want A to light up a cigar in the game room, and nobody complains when A does so, how much should someone who wasn't there care whether you like cigar smoke or not? Yes, smoking a cigar indoors is wrong by contemporary standards, and ought not to be tolerated, but if no-one who's there objects, why should anyone object. (NO. This is not a defense to rape. Don't even try that move again. But it IS a defense to some of the invasion-of-personal-space areas of interactions in public spaces at a con. I might well say, "if that were me it sure would bother me" but I would conclude "if it doesn't seem to bother HER, it's none of my damn business". All bets are off if there is quick, obvious, and audible objection to having one's personal space invaded.)
"Secondly, your BAFFLING attempt to allocate blame to someone speaking of being a victim of rape."
Start with the STAGGERINGLY INCORRECT conflation of a discussion of inept pickup line delivery with rape of a child, and the accompanying suggestion that I supported the latter. An overly emotional attack generated an overly emotional counter-attack.
Then, yes, failure to outcry DOES contribute, in however small a manner, to the victimizer's continuing ability to victimize (along with anyone else who knows of the victimizer's nature and fails to take appropriate steps… (For example, when Mom knows Boyfriend is abusing the kids, but keeps silent. In that case, not only is there moral responsibility, there is legal responsibility as well. Victimhood does NOT convey immunity to moral wrong… Russia was sorely hurt in WWII… which does not excuse the brutal repression in Eastern Europe after the war.)
"Again, seemingly completely at odds with your previous positions."
If pointing out that people are responsible for their own actions is counter to the position that people are responsible for their own actions, sure.
"If I am assaulted by someone who solicited me for kinky sex and I, being a respectable normal guy, am too embarrassed to report it, I am not responsible for that person's subsequent assaults."
Correct. You are responsible for YOUR choice, to place your own desire to protect your reputation as a non-kinky-sex-liking guy OVER the possible victimization of other people. That's on you… it's your choice, and it's not particularly morally murky, either.
"To further crush the whole "well, if you had reported it" fallacy, I shall stand mutely pointing at the Catholic Church."
Funny. I was ALSO going to point at the Catholic Church. If they had reported pedophile priest accusations as they flowed in to the police, hundreds if not thousands of people would not have been victimized. The local diocese was pushed into bankruptcy because of the volume of claims against it. Had the Church reported instead of keeping silent to protect its reputation, they would have taken a brief hit to the reputation, and then the majority of their good works would have overshadowed it. Instead, they concealed the reports, throwing ALL of their good works away in the process. You think that supports your side of this debate?
This is already a wall-o-text, so I'll just address this part:
"should the "Socially Awkward" be treated like a nature preserve? Where we watch them and allow them to go on their way? Or do we treat them responsible human beings?"
If you want to treat them as responsible human beings, you have to instruct them what is expected of them. It WOULD be nice if everybody came pre-imprinted from womb with rules for social interaction built-in, they have to be taught how to pursue their interests without offending the rest of us. Now go back and substitute "we" for "they", for we ALL have to learn, and keep up with, the rules of what behavior is acceptable and what is not, and those rules aren't even the same from place to place, let alone year to year.
@James Pollock: You still don't get that the people I'm talking about aren't deterred by me speaking up.
When someone creeps me out but doesn't really seem to understand what he is doing, what I say is, "I'm not trying to be mean to you, but [behavior] kind of pushes my buttons, can you lay off a bit? Thanks."
With lots of reassurances thrown in that I'm not trying to judge, i.e.: "I know some women tend to like [behavior] but it's really not for me, and it bothers me when men do [behavior] at/to me. Thank you for understanding; most guys don't. I appreciate it." If the person in question has good intent, that's usually plenty to get them to stop and also to keep the situation from getting ugly; everyone wins.
When I say 'creepy,' I mean a man who hears this and continues the behavior in question. Or I mean a man who comes up and puts his hands on me without asking, backs me up against a wall, or attempts to follow me late at night when we're both alone. Again, I might hurt his feelings by running the fuck away when it's late at night and I have no backup, but I'm afraid of being assaulted. In this situation, if I hurt his feelings by protecting myself then it's just too bad for him. I'm not changing my behavior to fix his problems. If he doesn't understand that this behavior is creepy, then he can continue until he gets maced for all I care. Not my problem.
"I disagree that it's someone's moral duty to speak directly to the transgressor and try to get that person to change his mind."
That's a straw man, as I don't see anyone suggesting this.
Sometimes, it's effective to say "I'm not OK with that", and sometimes it's necessary to have the bouncer say it for you. The idea is to get the idea ("that's not OK") to sink in by repetition. This is particularly true if the message you want to convey is "that's NEVER okay".
"The REAL problem is not the socially inept nerds who offend by accident. We just want them off the field, dating happily with happy partners."
And the way to accomplish this is to tell them "no" AND explain what they're doing wrong.
"The real problem is the people who, even with CLEAR indications that What They Are Doing Is Not Right, go ahead anyways.
And the solution here is to tell them "no" and back it up with real consequences for proceeding incorrectly. These consequences may be immediate (suitable force delivered directly to the offender's sensitive regions, a slap, a full on punch), they may be slightly delayed (waiting for the bouncer to cross the room) or they may long-term (the offender goes ungratified sexually). Speaking loudly about the offense assists the second and third of these options.
"There's no mind-reading required. There's this little thing, which everyone here (professed geeks/nerds and otherwise) seems to be managing pretty well: advanced language skills."
Alas, it's not that simple. When humans communicate, a significant portion of the communication is happening nonverbally. A substantial portion of the geek community is not able to successfully read those nonverbal cues. And their "advanced language skills" deserts them when confronted by an actual woman. If they HAD skills that allowed them to interact successfully with women, they wouldn't be causing problems.
As for your list of suggestions, it includes "may I buy you a drink?"… which is on the list of things a previous commenter finds objectionable.
I dunno… I'm waiting to read "Since Webster's online dictionary gives as their example of being creepy as 'a fascinating but creepy stage show by an offbeat magician,' and I am neither a magician or a Bluth, it is impossible that my misogynist statements are creepy."
Hopefully, this will be followed by 2 citations in MLA format, plus an example of footnotes.
Ken, you speak the demon's name and are surprised it shows up? Forsooth, you foolish mortal.
Mr. Pollock: As, apparently, women have failed in their job to educate creepers, should the responsibility perhaps fall onto the shoulders of other men?
Have you, for example, ever interceded in a situation in which you perceive a woman to be uncomfortable? Because from here, it honestly seems to me like a staggering amount of victim-blaming, without a whiff of responsibility being borne by male friends / acquaintances / by-standers.
@mister bile: good timing! As you'll see below. (Note that the below is not aimed at you.)
@James Pollock: You are basically focusing on the man feeling sad that someone rejected him. But him feeling sad and not meaning to cause fear don't mean that the fear and its underlying root cause–the fact that many many women are assaulted every day–magically go away. You're saying that women should ignore that fear solely for the purpose of making men feel better and improving men's lives. I'm saying that expecting this is just plain fucked up, because large numbers of women are victimized on a daily basis and they have to pay attention to that fear to keep themselves safe.
And since you don't seem to get it: by victimized, I mean raped, assaulted, battered, harassed, stalked, etc.
Is it sad that some men feel lonely? Yeah. Undoubtedly. Do women have a moral imperative to make them feel better at the possible risk of their safety? No.
If a woman should feel so inclined to talk to someone displaying inappropriate behavior, is that a good thing? Yes! If a woman reports harassment, talks about harassment, raises awareness, etc., is that a good thing? Yes!
If that woman is afraid for her safety, is she likely to want to do this? No. Should it be her moral imperative to ignore her fear, given the very real repercussions that could result, in order to offer said education? NO.
Bear in mind that this comes from a woman who DID speak to the man harassing her and was retaliated against for doing so by another, DIFFERENT man, all whilst the first man continued with the same behavior that caused the talking-to in the first place. How much more do I have to say this? Speaking up can put women at risk. Speaking up has put women at risk. Speaking up has put ME, PERSONALLY, in the firing line of someone who committed a crime against me. You don't get to say that I can't be concerned about speaking up when shit like this happens to me when I do. If I decide to speak up, it's a good thing, but you aren't entitled to expect that I do so every time. Not when it's my body and my rights at stake on the one hand, and somebody's hurt fee-fees at stake on the other.
@James Pollock –
Your behavior in this thread is not OK.
Kat, I somehow missed your post at 8:04, which deserves a response.
"Let me ask you a question that might make you a little uncomfortable. Do you fear being raped?"
No, I have other fears. Some are reasonable, and some are not; most are more reasonable some times and less reasonable at other times.
"I was raped when I was ten."
I'm truly sorry that this occurred. I hope you found support from people who care about you to help you recover.
"Have you ever experienced this fear firsthand?"
Again, I have different fears, that are mine.
"If you haven't, do you really think it's reasonable to explain to someone what their personal boundaries should be?"
Well, that's part of the reason I haven't "explained to someone what their personal boundaries should be". The closest I've come is advocating that you tell people what your personal boundaries are, if you don't want them encroached. Not the same thing.
"I was followed on a dark street one night near my college and had to seek refuge with campus police, and when I came home late that night some of my male friends poked fun at me for overreacting."
They were wrong to do so.
"Otherwise I'm just being jumpy to some poor guy who was walking home."
That IS a possibility. But the person with the primary responsibility for ensuring your personal safety is you. It's possible that your life's experiences have made you oversensitive to possible danger, and you see threats that aren't there. It's also possible that your life's experiences have made you more aware to possible dangers. I can't tell the difference and wouldn't presume to try.
"I have had a male coworker grope me in an attempt to silence me at work because I spoke up when someone's inappropriate touching and behavior made me uncomfortable. (And yes, I formally reported him–and I only informally reported the first guy because he wouldn't knock it off even after being told that I didn't appreciate what he was doing."
This is unfortunate (the fact that you work with jerks without boundaries, I mean.) Which of my statements makes you think I'd be anything other than condemning of that behavior? It's wrong. And speaking up to people who can do something about it is the first step in getting it controlled.
"Guy #2 happened to overhear me talking to Guy #1 and decided to corner me in the breakroom, touch me inappropriately, and ask me if I was going to go after him too now? I did. Is that active enough for you?)"
Sure is. (side note: If you weren't the first woman he groped, don't you wish someone else had spoken up before he got to you?)
"If you don't see some way in which it's exasperatingly dense that you're suggesting that the problem is that women don't speak up enough then I don't know what to tell you."
When I wrote about the need to speak up, it was on a different topic.
"On the one side you're talking about men feeling bad about women having negative reactions to them. Or men feeling bad that they can't have sex with women."
What, now?
"On the other side you have women who are or have been threatened, belittled, or assaulted, and then when they speak up it happens more."
That's wrong. But how effective at fighting this behavior is staying silent about it?
"But they should go ahead and speak up because hey, how are the poor guys supposed to know?"
Again, I wrote on a different topic.
"Here's why you're wrong: rapists don't come with a post-it note on their foreheads saying "avoid me.""
Well, in a perfect world, the orange jumpsuit would be an indicator.
"It is not my job to cater to possibly hurt feelings if I think my safety is on the line."
Yeah. Who's telling you it is?
"Presuming that it is my job is basically classically sexist."
No. Saying that IF you want men's behavior in approaching you to change, you have to tell them what behavior you want (or don't want) As I noted before, it is because you want the change that you have this responsibility, and not sexist at all, as it applies equally well in a great many situations, most of which are not oriented to gender at all.
"When a woman calls someone a creeper, what she means is "you make me feel afraid for my safety.""
Correction. When YOU say that, it's what YOU mean. My experience (admittedly limited, as noted above) suggests that the most frequent meaning is "I don't want that guy hitting on me", and behind that is a variety of reasons, usually mixed, including "I can do better", "that guy is undesirable", "that guy is wildly inappropriate for me (usually because of age) and should know better than hitting on me, and yes, "I don't feel safe". Some of these are reasonable, and some are subject to change with time.
"What you are suggesting is that women should put aside that fear and speak up anyway, even when it would put us in danger, so that men can have a more convenient life and not have to do tough personal work because it's hard."
WTF? This cannot be reasonably inferred from anything I've written.
@James Pollock
So, I was going to go to bed (Zuul will get you for starting this thread Ken, Mark My Words….) but I'm going to at least skim the high points off the Wall o text:
@James Pollock:"It's a women who are responsible for teaching him IF THEY WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT."
Bzzt! Lets say we accept this as women's responsibility. I don't, because I think the way we treat gender roles fucks up men just as badly as women, but that's an argument for another thread.
So, we assume that women teach what behaviour they want. But then men , teach things that are 100% the opposite. What now, home dog? It turns into conflicting messages, that confuse every…oh hey, this sounds familiar. That's what we have now. So, the status is…quo?
"I think the status is NOT quo."
To briefly touch your ice cream scenario: "oh that fucking wuss, every week he's in here "chocolate, chocolate" he knows he likes vanilla. He should stop his bitching."
What women want is not "better technique" – they want to stop being treated like a collection of sexual characteristics. Y'know, like _people_ (I apologize for speaking for all women. But I will also note that they all also love origami spiders, just thought everyone should know).
So this is why it's not "women's responsibility" because we are not a culture of women. We all need to get on message.
No objection on the cigar thing, we're good there. What I WILL point out is that there is a personal safety issue involved. I've seen women in the train POLITELY ask a guy to stop talking to her and he starts railing at her, knowing this is intimidating (and yes, I stepped in, but I shouldn't have to).
Back in the 1800's, suggesting someone go smoke somewhere else could get your head blown clean off. So it shows we can change…again, we just need to get on message.
I would hope that no one seriously thinks that victim hood confers immunity to moral wrongdoing, but I'm gonna squash this with the next example:
The Catholic Church: So, it appears that I DO have to explain it. Victims DID report it, many of them. Over decades. And it did no good. You seem to think I was upholding them as a shining exams, when in fact I am spitting on it.
So therefore when you say to @hell no:
@James Pollock: "Then yes, you share some culpability to his other victims, because could have been stopped had you SPOKEN UP. You chose to trade THEIR safety for YOUR safety, and that's all you."
You have NO way of knowing this. First off, @hell stated an uncertainty as to whether there are more victims. What's more, there is no way to assert that her risking her safety was for anything more than an unknowable chance of stopping the abusers behaviour.
But for you to assign a positive blame (culpability) over what is effectively a giant sized edition of "What If"….sorry man, no sale there. You really did basically tell a rape victim it was her fault. It's both hugely arrogant and a pretty damn spot on illustration of the problem the women in the thread have stated over and over again. And for your your talk about "women saying what they want" – I've seen at least one female poster bail at about that point and several others take you to task over it, and yet…here we still are, with you trying to justify it. Man up, apologize and move on. Or not…it's YOUR decision.
Do I believe that her example was out of scale with the discussion of awkward/rude guys? Yes. Do I think it had a larger relevance to the overarching discussion of men overstepping their bounds? Yes.
Did I mix these issues initially myself? Yes, I did and my initial posts were more hostile towards you than they would have been had I separated them. So, my apologies there.
@James Pollock: "If you want to treat them as responsible human beings, you have to instruct them what is expected of them."
But they also have to listen. And understand that there are consequences for, not just failing to listen, but failing to act. As in act properly towards others.
You don't just get to say "I'm socially awkward" and keep on merrily smashing shit.
I'm happy to help those who want to learn, because as I have said repeatedly, I was that socially inept kid at one point, but I want the bastards who will not listen, or think that their biological urges trump the interests and safety of other people – them I want the fuck out of the pool, and they can take the rubber ducky with them.
" As, apparently, women have failed in their job to educate creepers, should the responsibility perhaps fall onto the shoulders of other men?"
The problem being that other men may not (have not) educated the creepers the way women want them educated. See, that would be the PUA community's teachings, which apparently were not satisfactory to women generally. Of course, I can't, and wouldn't try to, speak for all women, but if they're satisfied with the work done by other men, then there's no problem to address, and if they're not, then it didn't work. Since complaints continue, I have to assume that the "other men" approach didn't work out very well.
"Have you, for example, ever interceded in a situation in which you perceive a woman to be uncomfortable?"
Yeah, I've been kicked out of places for doing the bouncer's job. As an intercedor, however, I do need a clear signal that the behavior in question is, in fact, unwelcome to its current recipient.
"Because from here, it honestly seems to me like a staggering amount of victim-blaming, without a whiff of responsibility being borne by male friends / acquaintances / by-standers."
Again, my point is that without clear communication, those male friends/ acquaintances/by-standers are left without guidance on whether to act, much less how. Or do you think that they should act unilaterally without checking to see what the women actually want?
@James Pollock
Hmm… didn't work the first time. Well you did say it might sink in by repetition.
Your behavior tonight is not OK. Your behaviour on this thread is not OK.
(I want to treat you as a responsible human being, I must instruct them you on what is expected of you)
Your actions and reasoning tonight are not OK.
(Imagine this one spoken out loud if verbal cues are better)
*Not* OK
(imagine that one as a nice painting if visual is your thing)
No! Bad James! No!
Is it effective yet?
"When I say 'creepy,' I mean a man who hears this and continues the behavior in question."
That would be wrong. You need to provide real negative consequences for this behavior. (I would, but I'm not there, you see.)
"I mean a man who comes up and puts his hands on me without asking, backs me up against a wall, or attempts to follow me late at night when we're both alone."
OK, the first two of these are unequivocally wrong, and the third may or may not be (by which I mean it's possible there's an innocent explanation for this, for example, if you're both in a parking garage, it's possible he's following you and it's possible he's parked near you.)
"If he doesn't understand that this behavior is creepy, then he can continue until he gets maced for all I care. Not my problem."
But it IS. From your writings, you live your life in fear… reasonable or not… but YOU have an interest in guys who are not rapists learning how to not set off your creepy-ometer, thereby reducing your overall state of fear. It also would improve your personal safety, because you would have less "false positives".
Ken,
A handful of points for consideration:
1. I think you possibly are mistaken to the extent that you suggest that geek culture in particular or especially exhibits these "thoroughly creepy undercurrents." The misbehavior in question strikes me as relatively common in many areas of life. Though my practice does not include sexual harassment cases, the volume of case law in that area, even discounting for false or weak claims, suggests that such behavior abounds in everyday life. The fact patterns of some reported cases are shocking.
2. Perhaps I read too much into your "thoroughly creepy undercurrents" comment. I raise the issue mostly because multiple commenters focus on social ineptitude as a rationale or excuse for this behavior. I don't think this behavior has anything to do with social awkwardness or the like. Plenty of geeks would acknowledge themselves to be awkward in general and concede that they are lost when it comes to women. Yet, I think most of us have managed not to grope others without their consent.
3. So what does explain it? Men who say lurid things to perfect strangers, or paw or grope them, either are cretins or brutes. That is, only an uncouth ignoramus or someone who delights in the discomfort or pain of others engages in this sort of behavior. I tend to think the latter predominate, as I find it hard to believe that very many do not understand that it is impolite to whisper "coitus, coitus, coitus" into the ear of someone you do not know or that you cannot touch strangers without their consent. But I could be mistaken.
4. I think this explains at least one subset of the angry commenters that these posts attract. Cretins and brutes are being labeled as such and don't appreciate it. Some of the angry comments that accumulate on these types of posts seem to verify this impression (e.g., the ones trying to discount or excuse obviously inexcusable behavior like uninvited non-consensual touching—acts that cannot possibly be excused by context based on the stories in the multiple links that you include in your post).
5. That said, I think that, by including the SFWA kerfuffle and "chainmail-bikini-chicks" among a set of links replete with first-hand recounts of coarse sexual come-ons and unwanted groping, you make your post more controversial than it otherwise might be. Some undoubtedly will see a straight line between the former, which involve comparatively mild, if nonetheless backward, language (e.g., "lady writers") and images of scantily clad women, and a culture with groping issues. But that is a much more controversial sort of claim, akin to the notion that pornography encourages rape.
6. This more controversial claim definitely has a certain political valence, and some do not share it. Some find that sort of Catherine MacKinnonesque brand of feminism rather objectionable. I think this accounts for another set of disgruntled commenters. As a rule, I think this group also does not cover itself with glory in comment threads any more than the cretins and brutes. But their often inarticulate anger aside, I think this second group has a point.
7. To lay my cards on the table, I find the vast majority of the conduct described in the many links you include to be abhorrent. No civilized person would treat another human being in this fashion. Geek conventions should not resemble Tailhook. (Tailhook should not have resembled Tailhook.) And one does not need to subscribe to any brand of feminism hold this opinion. A thoroughly old-fashioned sense of propriety, decency, and decorum will suffice.
8. But the more controversial claim implicit in your post leaves me cold. You don't want to be verbally or sexually harassed at conventions (or elsewhere for that matter), I'm on board. But I cannot muster much sympathy for the position that the collective works of Boris Vallejo—puerile as I find them now that I'm no longer 13—are an instrument of oppression with the effect, if not the purpose, of depriving female geeks of their rightful place at the gaming table. Should I really have to swear fealty to online feminism's tenets du jour to play Dungeons & Dragons?
"You are basically focusing on the man feeling sad that someone rejected him."
No. I'm not focusing on men, or even rejection. Are you confusing me with someone else?
"You're saying that women should ignore that fear solely for the purpose of making men feel better and improving men's lives."
I said this before and I'll say it again. It is not possible to infer this from anything I've written.
"Bear in mind that this comes from a woman who DID speak to the man harassing her and was retaliated against for doing so by another, DIFFERENT man, all whilst the first man continued with the same behavior that caused the talking-to in the first place. How much more do I have to say this? Speaking up can put women at risk."
Yes. But speaking up remains the ONLY way to effect change. If you don't want things to change, then feel free to remain silent.
"You don't get to say that I can't be concerned about speaking up when shit like this happens to me when I do."
That's why I didn't say that.
"If I decide to speak up, it's a good thing"
If you want things to change, it's the necessary first step.
"you aren't entitled to expect that I do so every time."
That's why I didn't, and don't. Once again, IF YOU WANT THINGS TO CHANGE, you have to speak up about the things you want changed.
"Not when it's my body and my rights at stake on the one hand, and somebody's hurt fee-fees at stake on the other."
You're really worked up about hurt feelings. I don't know where that's coming from. I'm not really worried if the guy who groped you has his feelings hurt when you speak up about it. Where, exactly, do you expect to find someone who is?
"Your behavior in this thread is not OK."
How so?
@ Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk
"Should I really have to swear fealty to online feminism's tenets du jour to play Dungeons & Dragons?"
Depends on your Dungeon Master :P
I stopped reading the comments fully about 3/4 of the way through, scanned them all, but stopped reading everyone at that point, my apologies. I've been a tech professional since the early 80's ( a bit longer as a hobby) so maybe I qualify as a nerd or geeky, I've certainly been to my share of conventions, don't seem to have many of the same stories to tell that other participants have though. I've always been socially awkward so dealing with anybody is,,, a task, dealing with women is……taxing!
So, having set my qualifications, I'm going to chime in, briefly. First, let me establish that I was brought up by a very strong single mother, my awkwardness in social situations my have been impacted by a lack of a father figure, but I learned that a woman can do what a mom and dad can do, and them some! So one argument I read concerning single parent families doesn't always hold water. I will say that I whole heartedly agree with most of what princessartemis stated in her original post, but that is based on my personal years of experience in my particular industry and I certainly can't speak for everyone's experiences.
I've never made an inappropriate gesture, comment or any action towards a women in any kind of public situation. I was brought up to respect women, have always respected women, had many women supervisors, I guess maybe I have just never had the opportunity to objectify women! I was accused of sexual harassment in a very public forum, and there was no truth to it what-so-ever, as witnesses verified.
Until I could bring forth witnesses to prove otherwise, I was treated as guilty, just by word of the accuser. If need be I can go into details but like I said I was exonerated by witnesses (complete strangers) so I won't. However, this is why a discussion like this gets my dander up a little, until you've faced the process you really don't know how terrible it can be. I know sexual harassment happens and should be dealt with, and I know I am biased by my own experience, but I believe each incident MUST be looked at on a case by case basis and judged accordingly.
Ken, I wait to read your posts, just love everyone of them! Even ones like this, it certainly creates discussion about a subject that I have strong feeling about. I understand why some feel objectors to your post are missing the point or maybe even perpetrators, cause if you haven't been on the "wrong" side of this issue, you simply don't understand how devastating it can be to a career. I was lucky, there were witnesses, if the claims had been true, someone besides myself would have received justice. Interestingly enough, without the witnesses, it appeared to me that I stood a better chance of being falsely accused than prevailing.
Because I wouldn't want my mother or daughter or any other woman sexually harassed, I don't fly off the handle at these type of posts. But I can assure you that; yes sexual harassment takes place, claims of sexual harassment are not always substantiated. I don't get into arguments about this subjects and I want legitimate sexual harassment to stop, I'm just presenting a potential reason why you might get "nutty" responders to your posts on a subject such as this.
I'm also in my mid 50's now, so I guess by definition I'm creepy. At least that's what I'm told frequently on the internet. But you know, I'm just being internet friendly, when I started getting on the internet, browsers didn't exit yet. So I'm awkward in social situations in person, but online I'm really just a social butterfly! That's creepy to many people because of my age, but no one can say it's because I've made inappropriate remarks to them. Still doesn't stop me from being labeled as creepy though.
OK, so I said briefly up above, I lied, my apologies. Having read through this, I don't have an argument against what you posted. I just know that's it's just not completely a cut and dry issue and I hope people keep that in mind.
It's a women who are responsible for teaching him IF THEY WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
"Bzzt! Lets say we accept this as women's responsibility."
Let's not. As I pointed out previously, it has nothing to do with gender. Anyone who wants change of any kind has the responsibility to outline what change they want. So, let's say we accept this as a subset of women's responsibility, specifically, those women who want different behavior from men approaching them at geek-culture events.
"I think the way we treat gender roles fucks up men just as badly as women, but that's an argument for another thread."
OK, but irrelevant. If men want different behaviors from women, the first step is to communicate the desired changes to women. I suggest hiring Oprah as a spokeswoman… women seem to listen to her.
"So, we assume that women teach what behaviour they want. But then men , teach things that are 100% the opposite."
Well, I suppose you could listen to other men pontificating on what women actually want… it's how most of us got through junior high school… but I don't think they're going to be equally weighted.
"What now, home dog? It turns into conflicting messages, that confuse every…oh hey, this sounds familiar. That's what we have now."
No, the problem is conflicting messages from women. If they got together and agreed on what they want (a BIG "if"), that would be pretty clear. The problem is that they continue to act individually, with individual needs and wants. I'm not suggesting that this is going to change significantly (nor should it)(nor should anything like an attempt to impose it) But, if enough of them agreed on something, and stayed on message, I think the status would not quo.
"What women want is not "better technique" – they want to stop being treated like a collection of sexual characteristics. Y'know, like _people_ "
So treating women like "_people_" and not as a collection of sexual characteristics would be a better technique of approaching them initially?
"So this is why it's not "women's responsibility" because we are not a culture of women. We all need to get on message."
Again, it's not at all about being one gender or the other. It's about wanting things to change. As for being on message, first we have to know what the message is. Or are you suggesting that I can get "on message" regarding what women want without consulting them first? Isn't that the root of the current problem?
"I WILL point out is that there is a personal safety issue involved. I've seen women in the train POLITELY ask a guy to stop talking to her and he starts railing at her, knowing this is intimidating (and yes, I stepped in, but I shouldn't have to)."
This indicates that perhaps "POLITELY" wasn't the appropriate form for the message. Second, note that by making the complaint publicly, she attracts attention to the immediate problem and summons aid, if required. That's the system working. It's unfortunate that it is sometimes necessary to summon aid to enforce one's rights, but this is frequently true and, again, not gender-specific. Going all Bernadette Goetz is probably an overreaction, but it WOULD send a forceful message.
(Catholic Church)
"Victims DID report it, many of them. Over decades. And it did no good."
Not publicly. A good many of the victims kept quiet, until there was money to be had, at which point they came forward (because the money made up for the embarrassment– you can argue that there shouldn't be shame in victimization, but there often is.).
"You have NO way of knowing this. First off, @hell stated an uncertainty as to whether there are more victims."
She would no better than I would whether there are, or how likely there are, other victims. I didn't bring up other victims, I quoted her statements regarding them. If there are no other victims, then she has culpability for the no other victims, and potential culpability for any that might be victimized in the future, until the rapist is dead or imprisoned for life.
"What's more, there is no way to assert that her risking her safety was for anything more than an unknowable chance of stopping the abusers behaviour."
Well there's also the chance that the state punishes the offender for his crimes, which drops to zero with no report.
"You really did basically tell a rape victim it was her fault."
No, I basically didn't. I basically told a rape victim that she was partially at fault for her rapists continued freedom. If you can't tell the difference between what I basically said was her fault and what I didn't, we're back to that "reading comprehension" thing.
"they also have to listen. And understand that there are consequences for, not just failing to listen, but failing to act. As in act properly towards others. You don't just get to say "I'm socially awkward" and keep on merrily smashing shit."
I'm not sure I agree completely with this. There are some people who are socially awkward because they haven't had an opportunity to learn proper social skills (or learned skills appropriate to a different milieu and haven't adjusted yet), there are people who are socially awkward because they decline to put in the effort to learn, and there are some people who have real inability to learn. Treating people in these different categories as the same will be counterproductive for at least two of the subgroups.
"I want the bastards who will not listen, or think that their biological urges trump the interests and safety of other people – them I want the fuck out of the pool, and they can take the rubber ducky with them."
No argument here.
"Hmm… didn't work the first time. Well you did say it might sink in by repetition."
You have to wait until I read the message before it can work.
"Your behavior tonight is not OK. Your behaviour on this thread is not OK."
How so?
Was it when I scrolled through, reading messages by many people? Was it when I engaged other people with ideas? Was it in having an opinion?
Which of these things offends you?
My guess is that cultism explains a lot of this dynamic, just as I believe it explains the PUA scene in general. The leaders take that stance because it's their easiest way of going on power trips, and the followers do so because it's how they've been taught.
Also, I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suspect that there is a much higher than average prevalence of people with Asperger's Syndrome among the followers. I've been following an exceptionally clueless Aspie on Facebook who has appropriated all sorts of sexual rudeness from the internet and tried to use it to get women because he has no fucking idea how inappropriate it sounds and doesn't have a clue about the nuances needed to discern whether vulgarity is appropriate to the circumstances. This guy badly needs to be civilized by hookers, but instead he's on track to get further degraded by PUA's and their ilk. Unfortunately, a dippy woman in his Facebook circle recently told him that men who hire escorts are categorically "sad and lonely." This was horrible advice for someone in his position. I just hope (and I'm sincere about this fear) that he doesn't pull a George Sodini someday. He's in his late twenties and openly desperate about his never having had a girlfriend.
As far as I can tell, the manosphere brings together a real fruit salad of the disordered, mostly embittered divorced men who conflate the behavior of their treacherous ex-wives with the behavior of all women everywhere and confirmed bachelors, most of them Aspies or close, who sit around their apartments interacting with misogynists online instead of having anything to do with real women in the real world.
I'm not aware of any situation of this sort pertaining to race.
I have a theory I didn't see reading the comments, at least not explicitly stated as such.
On one side, you have logical to a fault people poking holes in all the vagueness, generalizations, double standards, and other complaints on the system that both unfairly rewards and punishes, missing the forest for the trees. On the other side, you have emotional and pragmatic people who try to trivialize these arguments not based on their merit, but on the applicability (commonness, social norms, etc) missing the trees that make up the forest. These two groups talk past each other, and have trouble separating those who have extreme faith in their beliefs and those who have extreme beliefs. So not only do you have extremists puffing up on both sides, you have false positives on who is an extremist.
I admit I fall squarely in the first camp. Heck, I have even been in a relationship where I was taken advantage of for being a smart, introverted male by an attractive female who had plenty of smarts but used sex as a tool anyway. I know first-hand there are victims of too lax AND too strict enforcement of "sexual harassment". Regardless, I still lack comprehension for how some men in a culture I dabble in are so out of touch that they ignore the same personal boundaries they expect from others. I guess I am more unique than I give myself credit for if I am a "geek" who doesn't tolerate assholes nor is one myself.
A final musing – perhaps the trouble stems from a shared fear. ALL systems have limits, beyond which you get false results. Both sides can picture seeing themselves caught beyond the functional limit of the other side's ideal system. I personally think that trying to treat sexual harassment as an independant class of harassment is part of the problem (disclaimer, I see affirmative action as reverse racism) but I already admitted I prefer my objective principles (logic) over what is more practical but in flux (emotion).
Sorry if that got a bit too stream of consciousness. I wonder if anyone will even respond, since I am curious if these thoughts are novel to the conversation or merely off-topic and I am off-base.
…but I like chainmail bikinis :(
So I read the whole thread. TL;DR: Men and women still don't understand eachother very well. On a macro level, this is humorous. When trying to universally apply their misunderstandings to individual human beings, this is rage-inducing and leads to arguing on the internet.
There was no popcorn consumed. This thread makes me wonder how any of the posters have any chance of being happy in their lives, let alone happily married and reproducing.
Well put Ken.
And to those jumping up and down on Ken's lawn, it shows how much that Ken values both free speech and wishes to understand your sociology (pathology?) that even in his own forum, where he's allowed to be master of his own domain, that he has not laced his lawn with punji stake pits.
@James Pollock
Since you asked, here's why what you're doing is not OK…
You do not have skin in this game. At the very least, you are not a woman, and at most, I don't get the impression that you're the kind of person who goes to cons or has gone to cons in the past.
That doesn't necessarily mean you can't understand the problem or how to solve it. It doesn't necessarily mean you're incapable of empathizing with women. It's entirely possible for someone to "get" what someone else is going through without going through it themselves.
But the people here who have gone through it have told you, over and over and over, that you don't get it, that you're wrong. And yet you keep telling them that they're wrong, and that they'd be better off if only they'd listen to you and your great ideas.
People are telling you that in the real world in which this is a problem, in the world in which they live, the ideas and solutions you're espousing don't work. And you refuse to listen.
To trot out a shiny new word I'd never heard before this thread, you're mansplaining.
That's not OK. You need to stop it.
One of my favorite Yiddish sayings applies here… If three people tell you you're an ass, buy a saddle (or the Irish variant I've also heard quoted… if three people tell you you're drunk, call a cab).
@ Roger,
The funny bit is, the disagreements aren't as wide as they seem, and I'd wager the vast majority of us do just fine at life. It's just contentious because it has to do with sexual relationships, and for all the other reasons listed above.
From the GF, who has been halfassed-reading this thread over my shoulder, and who now demands I post her statement:
"Geeks are creepy because they are ugly and awkward. How would those guys feel about being hit on by 350lb women constantly?"
Harsh!
I'm late late late to this party, but have you seen anything like the two studies in this post? http://feministdisney.tumblr.com/post/50286632075/sanityscraps-thegoddamazon-maymay-repeat
120 men, out of 1882, when interviewed and asked about their sex lives, admitted to 483 cases of rape; the trick was, the interviewers used clinical descriptions of behaviors that met the legal definition of rape rather than coming out and saying the word "rape."
@James P
Darn… and I thought just repeating the "No, bad behavior James!" part might work like you said it would.
Others here have spelled out what your unwanted actions were with far greater lucidity, compassion, and patience than I have the ability to manage. Yet, the negative behavior continues despite the negative attention it garners.
Granted, I cannot bring to bear any of the real world consequences you speak of to further reinforce the message that your actions are unacceptable. That is hard to pull off in a forum.
So I would just ask you to consider, one more time, for the sake of it, as you say, "sinking in by repetition" to consider why your actions here have garnered so much negative attention from a large and varied set of responders.
Is it effective yet?
I'll go ahead and bet not. Sometimes, just giving somebody attention (negative or not) is more than enough to guarantee their unwanted behavior continues. This is true in forums, bars, public, private…. or as you say "every situation".
Darn, now I will have to live with being partially responsible for future victims of your posts and style of argument.
I apologize to those future readers in advance.
On the subject of the "If you don't speak out, you're responsible for what the creep does to other people after you" trope (Ugh! It hurts me to even write that)…
I write a blog the entire point of which is that people should speak out when they are wrong. My very first blog posting, almost eight years ago, touched on exactly that subject: "Speaking out about injustice, no matter how small, is a moral obligation." I find stupid little battles that other people would just let slide, because I wish more people would do that, and because I believe with unwavering faith that if more people did, the world would be a better place.
I think it would be great if more victims of sexual assault or creeping at cons felt comfortable speaking out to help change the culture and prevent their attackers from doing the same thing to other people in the future. I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for the people who are able to do this.
On the other hand, I'm not blind and dumb, and so I see how so much in our culture is stacked against women who do. I see how they can end up getting victimized twice, first in the actual assault and then when they try to speak out about it. I see the sad truth that speaking out is actually rather more likely to cause trouble for the person doing it than to stop the perpetrator from offending in the future.
I'm also capable of understanding what some here are apparently not, which is that when a woman is put into a situation where she legitimately fears for her safety, every thought and instinct she is having, and rightfully so, is, "How do I get safe?" not "How do I teach this creep that what he's doing isn't OK so that he'll be better at interacting with women in the future?"
There is a time and place for teaching, and a lot of that teaching has been going on, more and more, and I hope to some positive effect. However, when a woman is in what she perceives as a potentially dangerous situation with a creep is not that time, and blaming women in such situations accountable for not using them as teaching moments is simply wrong.
Woops, "I find stupid little battles" -> "I fight stupid little battles".
"If women don't teach men how to behave, then who will?" (Wow, that one is painful to type too.)
All of my kids have gone through the "Facing History And Ourselves" curriculum at their school, and one of the primary ideas taught in that curriculum is extremely relevant here… the idea of "upstanders."
When a person is being victimized — bullied, creeped, con-stalked, assaulted, whatever — they are often in no position to defend themselves, for reasons which should be obvious to anyone with even the most basic understanding of the human condition. Saying that the problem would go away if only they would stand up for themselves is the worst kind of offensive blame-the-victim thinking.
However, there are people who can make a difference in many cases… the people who witness the victimization and could step in and put a stop to it. In the words of Facing History, people need to be upstanders, not bystanders. Too, too often, women are victimized at cons in full sight of others who do nothing. That's not OK?
As for "But how can they know whether the attention that a woman is receiving is wanted or unwanted?" I call hot, steaming bullshit. I'm hardly the most socially clueful guy in the world, but I don't find it hard at all to tell the difference between the glint of playful flirting in a woman's eyes and the glint of fear. I don't find it hard at all to tell the difference between a man standing at arm's length from a woman having a civil conversation, and a man getting in a woman's face and making her uncomfortable.
Maybe some of the people placed in such a situation do find it difficult to tell for sure what's going on. But there are two obvious answers to that:
1. In a crowd of people, surely not all of them are so socially inept that they are blind to a woman being creeped in their midst.
2. Witnesses to an ambiguous situation can do what the perpetrator should have done: they can ask. "Excuse me, is everything OK here?"
It would be lovely if people feeling victimized felt empowered to confront their victimizers and put a stop to it. Sometimes they do. But when they don't, it falls to the people around them to help them.
"Since you asked, here's why what you're doing is not OK…
You do not have skin in this game. At the very least, you are not a woman, and at most, I don't get the impression that you're the kind of person who goes to cons or has gone to cons in the past."
So, what I'm doing wrong is that you are incapable of inferring that I AM the sort of person who goes to cons or has gone to cons in the past from MY DESCRIBING MY EXPERIENCES AT CONS?
What I'm doing wrong is YOU'RE VERY BAD AT INFERENCES?
"And yet you keep telling them that they're wrong, and that they'd be better off if only they'd listen to you and your great ideas."
No. Although I do seem to keep having to say "THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID"
"People are telling you that in the real world in which this is a problem, in the world in which they live, the ideas and solutions you're espousing don't work. And you refuse to listen."
In which WHAT is a problem? Are we even talking about the same thing? I really, REALLY think not.
To trot out a shiny new word I'd never heard before this thread, you're mansplaining.
WTF?
"Others here have spelled out what your unwanted actions were with far greater lucidity, compassion, and patience than I have the ability to manage. Yet, the negative behavior continues despite the negative attention it garners."
Try again. What is it you object to? Having an opinion? Stating it? or responding to people who're complaining about things I didn't say?
Mea culpa. I didn't go back and read every single comment you posted, and I forgot that.
That doesn't negate anything else I wrote.
Communication isn't about what you say, it's about what other people hear. And an awful lot of people seem to be hearing you say things you claim you're not saying. You should think about it, and perhaps learn something from it, but I doubt you will.
"when a woman is in what she perceives as a potentially dangerous situation with a creep is not that time, and blaming women in such situations accountable for not using them as teaching moments is simply wrong."
I agree. Who's been doing THAT?
"Saying that the problem would go away if only they would stand up for themselves is the worst kind of offensive blame-the-victim thinking."
Yeah… nobody's saying that one, either.
"Maybe some of the people placed in such a situation do find it difficult to tell for sure what's going on. But there are two obvious answers to that:
1. In a crowd of people, surely not all of them are so socially inept that they are blind to a woman being creeped in their midst.
2. Witnesses to an ambiguous situation can do what the perpetrator should have done: they can ask. "Excuse me, is everything OK here?"
Now that one IS offensive. If I'm not sure if a woman's happy with her present social interactions, I should monitor her and if I'm curious, pop in and ask "Pardon me, miss, do you need a MAN'S help?" What a sexist.
"It would be lovely if people feeling victimized felt empowered to confront their victimizers and put a stop to it."
Wouldn't it, though?
"Sometimes they do. But when they don't, it falls to the people around them to help them."
Yes. It's none of my business until someone makes it my business, by asking for help.
@James Pollock
Your condescending tone and your non-answer answers put you in the asshole category for me. You are obviously a troll and those who took the time to interact with you as if you were sincere simply wasted that time and effort.
I think it would be best if you were ignored from now on.
"Mea culpa. I didn't go back and read every single comment you posted, and I forgot that.
That doesn't negate anything else I wrote."
It kind of does. If your inference was that far off 180 degrees, what ELSE didn't you get from what I wrote? You followed up with two more really, REALLY wrong examples.
"Communication isn't about what you say, it's about what other people hear."
In communication theory, this is corrected by feedback.
"And an awful lot of people seem to be hearing you say things you claim you're not saying."
Actually, it's the same people over and over.
"You should think about it, and perhaps learn something from it, but I doubt you will."
Some people hear what they want to hear. Knew that one already.
"Your condescending tone and your non-answer answers put you in the asshole category for me."
And I care about your opinion because…
@James Pollock
We here in this thread are talking about the situations Ken linked above in his original post. Since you clearly missed them the first time around, here they are again:
http://carriecuinn.com/2013/06/30/please-stop-touching-my-breasts-and-other-things-i-say-at-cons/
http://mariadahvanaheadley.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/but-he-didnt-know-he-was-hijacking-your-ship-on-conference-creeps/
http://www.cheriepriest.com/2013/06/28/maybe-its-just-us/
http://radishreviews.com/2013/07/01/harassment-and-the-back-channel/
http://blogs.laweekly.com/arts/2013/01/anime_conventions_speak_out_ag.php
http://glvalentine.livejournal.com/340623.html
Read the accounts contained in the links above. They talk about sexual harassment at cons. They offer examples of unacceptable behaviors that have made the reporters feel afraid happening at cons. This whole conversation began based on those accounts.
This is how you're trying to redefine the conversation:
We are talking about things like what are reported in the links above. NOT examples of men hitting on women and getting rejected, but examples of men pushing themselves up against women, taking their hands and putting them on women's bodies, sexually assaulting them.
The subject of the conversation was established in the original post. If you didn't read the accounts to understand what exactly was being talked about, that's on you.
Ken has even attempted to clue you and other people in to what we're talking about here several times in fact:
I honestly don't get what you're arguing for or against here, except that you REALLY REALLY didn't get the premise of the conversation. Here's your chance to take a step back, understand where the conversation began, and look at your statements in light of what we've been actually talking about here, not what you imagine we've been talking about.
The expression is "I should care about…." You're not even a very literate troll, are you?
@ Jonathan Kamens
"Witnesses to an ambiguous situation can do what the perpetrator should have done: they can ask. "Excuse me, is everything OK here?""
And even this intrusion can be seen as "creepy". So you refute yourself quite quickly. There are interactions which most people will realize are uncomfortable, but if there are people out there who can't do this, they are squarely in the demographic of geeks. And there are far more nuanced and ambiguous situations than "getting up in girl's faces" which are described as "creepy". The "creepy"-shamers want us to think that all behavior they describe so is sexual assault or clearly over social lines. It isn't. The world is more complex than that. And while we should shame and discourage bad behavior on the part of both men and women, ambiguous phrases which (as I said before) cannot distinguish between a look across a room and an assault are fairly worthless. Equivocation allows some men to see it as an assault on normal behavior while women and their internet protectors view that as a defense of rape or worse. The arguments go past each other. The word is useless as a means of clarifying the issue.
Now that the conversation has bubbled nicely, I see I have to amend my statement above.
Men are either mysogynist assholes or whipped,
Women are either thin-skinned whiners or apologists.
That's depending on which side of the issue they are on.
As far as being able to choose whether one is engaging in "creepy" behaviour, I have had a woman friend point out to me that I had been looking at her rather hungrily. It is fortunate that it was her and not some random woman inclined to take offense at such things, but I had been completely unaware that I was doing it until she pointed it out.
Yes, I am sometimes a "creeper", I have shame.
Yet nothing I do would cross into anyone else's personal space. I refrain from even off-color language with people that I don't know it is acceptable around.
My body language is just completely open and I find most women attractive.
Am I a bad person?
@Tarrou
The word "creep" is irrelevant. The behavior is relevant.
Saying that nothing can be done because some circumstances are ambiguous is a red herring and a cop-out. There are plenty of incidents that are clear and unambiguous where no one steps in.
I imagine there could potentially be circumstances where intruding into a situation where it seems like someone is being creeped "can be seen as 'creepy,'" but I think that's hardly the likely outcome, and therefore I think that argument is also a red herring and a cop-out. Any social interaction has the potential to go bad; you therefore weigh the potential outcome of intervening against the potential outcome of not invervening and make a judgment call. Perhaps you'll be wrong sometimes; that's no reason to try.
Honestly, listening to this discussion is like being on the grade-school playground all over again. Sure, there are a few social misfits who don't have a clue, but most kids know full well when somebody was being bullied, and most of them do nothing about it and then make all sorts of excuses for why they shouldn't be expected to.
Save the excuses. Grow up. Be an upstander. Make the world a better place.
*sigh* That's no reason NOT to try, I meant.
I found the premise of this article disconcerting. I was pretty active in tabletop gaming back in the 80's as well. I didn't see any of the problems described. My gaming club in high school had several female members. I do not recall them being treated any differently than the male members. Indeed, we liked having them there. And if someone were to have treated any of them poorly (I don't recall this ever happening) I do not think it would have gone over well. I recall one incident where a girl was wanting to go to our meetings but her parents wouldn't let her. I spoke with her mother and the only question she asked was "How many girls are in your club?" We were suprised by the question because we never thought of them as girls, simply as members. Maybe it's just area you were in. I was living in Columbus, OH at the time.
I'm going to spell out some things, to make it harder to misconstrue my words in future.
There are people who take advantage of the fact that many women are non-confrontational by nature, by touching them in ways that are not welcome. As best as I can tell, it is not limited to any subset of society. This is both wrong and indefensible and the sooner this behavior is stamped out, the better for everyone.
Some things that would accelerate this process include women being less reluctant to call these men on this behavior immediately and unequivocally, as well as both men and other women being willing and able to intercede on behalf of anyone who asks for help. It is ALSO true that to eradicate this type of behavior, the men who are doing it need to re-examine their motivations and behaviors, but that's something I have no influence over beyond making intercessions when called.
In the meantime, my working assumption is that you (whoever "you" are) are both empowered and able to make your own decisions about whether any particular behavior bothers you, specifically, and I'm not going to try to substitute my judgment for yours. If you don't think someone is over the line in dealing with you, then it's none of my business. If you do think it's over the line, I assume you'll either deal with the problem yourself as you see fit, or ask for assistance if you need it. The nature of your interactions with with other people is none of my business until you make it my business by asking for assistance.
You (again, whoever "you" might be) are the person primarily responsible for your own safety, and you should do whatever you think is necessary to protect your own safety. You should understand that what you think is necessary might or might not seem rational to various other people, some of whom will be insensitive about it. Ask for help if you need it; most people will give it even if some will not. If your perception of what is necessary to protect your safety seems to conflict with a large number of observers, consider reviewing your decision-making process with someone whose opinion and advice you trust.
Finally, all of this is applicable even if different genders are freely substituted, in any combination, throughout.
@ Kamens
You make my very point for me. It is the behavior which needs to be addressed, not the subjectivity of how that behavior is received. It is my contention that the hue and cry about "creeping" does little to address the behavior, because it is too ambiguous and makes some men defensive about normal behavior (myself included).
If you want to address behavior, do so. Don't cloak it in euphemisms and equivocation which can be used to slander all male behavior. And don't climb on board with those who conflate sexual assault and rape with "creepiness". We already have words for those things, it's "sexual assault" and "rape".
I alluded to this earlier. If you want to stop men touching women, tell men to stop touching women. Don't tell them to stop being a subjective category of behavior reliant on women's mental state and attractedness to them. I get that women have a greater threat sensitivity, but that is no more men's fault in general than it is women's.
I didn't say nothing can be done. I said this whole conversation is not geared toward getting anything done. It is geared toward bolstering the self-righteous moral authority of one side of a bitter argument, while marginalizing those on the other side.
A lot can be done, and a lot should be done. Both women and men need to think more deeply about how their actions are received. And both sides need to realize the fundamental reasonableness of their desires. Women don't want to be harassed, and men don't want to be falsely accused of harassment. Equivocating over what harassment is only extends and deepens that divide.
I like it. I've said similar things, but the Yiddish version, as always, is a superior phrasing.
In reality, however, it is human nature that the more people tell someone "Dude, not cool.", the more they tend to double-down on the derp.
As Leslie Fish wrote in "Here We Go A-Ramboing":
"Gentle sweet persuasion here will give you no relief
For those who yield to reason aren't the ones who cause you grief."
Saying, "That's not what I said," is not useful feedback.
Saying, "That's not what I said," and then ostensibly clarifying what you said, when your clarification seems to say the same thing you said before, does not change anything.
Your most recent comment above is more carefully worded and more verbose, but it is not substantively different from what you've said before.
You seem to be falling into the common fallacy of assuming that if people disagree with you, it must be because they're not listening or not understanding your point. We're listening. We get your point. And we (no, I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I think I am speaking for more than just myself) think you're wrong, and we think the approach you are espousing is not the best one, or even an effective one, for addressing the problem under discussion.
Mr. Kamens, do you suffer no cognitive dissonance at all in defending victims who choose not to do anything about their abuse, while decrying bystanders who choose not to do anything about abuse they witness?
Like he said… really draws out the nutters
@James:
One of your consistent themes is the obligation of the creeped-upon to give feedback to the creepers, for the good of society in general and for their own good. You took this to a nauseating and repugnant extreme by suggesting a rape victim who doesn't report her rape (as many don't) is responsible for subsequent rapes.
The common theme is this: entitlement.
I might be entitled to expect feedback in a personal relationship. That's why my wife can fairly joke about me being a typical unhappy-to-discuss-feelings male and I can joke about her being a typical refuses-to-say-why-she's-angry female without either of us indulging in inappropriate entitlement. We've been married for 16 years. We have an established relationship with reasonable expectations of each other.
But strangers are not entitled to our explanations. If somebody creeps me out, I bear no obligation to explain why.
You've been arguing that we can't expect people to adjust their behavior if people don't give feedback. The premise as I understand it is that, if women identify conduct that creeps them out, the creepifying men will learn and adjust their behavior and the world would be a better place. But the entire premise of this post — the core of my argument — is that vocalizing such things leads (at least in this culture) not to improvement, but to tantrums and disturbed anger. When someone tries to educate the public — by saying a rather mild "guys, don't do that" about being solicited in an elevator by a complete stranger at 4 in the morning — the reaction is freakishly entitled rage, even from seemingly socially competent people. Other common reactions are "you say that, but I heard about another woman some time some place who went home with a guy who did that. You bitches just like assholes and not Nice Guys like me." When women identify conduct that makes them uncomfortable, they are dismissed as bitches and whiners and overreactors and people trying malevolently to alter the inherent qualities of men and so forth. For the most part, women are faced with hatred if they articulate what makes them uncomfortable. And now you pile on scorn if they don't.
"You seem to be falling into the common fallacy of assuming that if people disagree with you, it must be because they're not listening or not understanding your point."
Perhaps. I might even believe this, if you had not CONSISTENTLY mis-identified my point, over and over.
"We're listening. We get your point."
I just don't think you do. I don't even think you (specifically) are even close.
"And we (no, I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I think I am speaking for more than just myself) think you're wrong, and we think the approach you are espousing is not the best one, or even an effective one, for addressing the problem under discussion."
Here's a communication technique you might try. First, what problem (or problems) are under discussion, and second, what do you think I suggested?
I would bet good money that you get BOTH wrong (from my perspective). That is, that we're discussing DIFFERENT problems and that the solution I wrote about previously isn't even an attempt to engage the problem you want to talk about. I also strongly suspect that if this is confirmed, you'll continue to whine about how my solution doesn't fix your problem.
Creepy/creeper has no definition. You are simply creepy if a woman declares you so. I defy anyone here to construct an objective definition of the term 'creepy' that is accepted without addendums by even 50% of the population.
Hell, even SNL is instructive in this matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
Because creepy has no definition, and because normal male sexuality is often classified as "creepy" depending on the whim of the individual female, it is little more than a form of slander.
Oooh, we're up to entitlement now! Quick, someone say "rape culture" and "male privilege" so we can score the trifecta!
@ Ken,
On the other side, there is situations like a woman overhearing a "dongle" joke at a tech conference and proceeding to get a guy fired over it, because she overheard something she perceived as uncomfortable. And yes, men get upset about things like that. The thought that if we do not at all times hew to the political and humor tastes of every woman within earshot, we could be attacked nationally, fired or prosecuted is a pretty serious threat.
I think we agree on most of the situations you put forward, but you aren't going to use situations of the more ambiguous sort which undermine your position. We can all agree that men pulling women's shirts up is bad, should be prosecuted and shamed. Where we do not agree is that men should be responsible for every perception, no matter how ludicrous, of otherwise normal behavior.
@Tarrou
Perhaps I have not been clear, so I will try one more time.
I think "creeping" is a lot less vague than you seem to think it is.
I think the risk of being falsely accused of harassment is far less prevalent than you and others seem to think it is (and there has been no evidence presented here to support your view). Generally speaking, the negative repercussions on a woman of accusing a man of harassment in an externally ambiguous situation is far higher for the woman than for the man. Perhaps the pendulum will some day swing in the other direction, but it's not there yet, and I think that pretending it is, is just another form of blaming the victim.
Note the use of the phrase "externally ambiguous" above. I think many creeps know full well what they're doing, and always make sure to keep it looking ambiguous from the outside, for reasons which your line of reasoning exemplifies.
I categorically reject the explicit and implicit claim made here by you and others that the only unambiguously unacceptable behavior is uninvited physical contact, and that any other behavior is too "subjective" to be actionable.
Finally, no one here is "slandering all male behavior."
Aside from the Scotsman anecdote – why is this a one-sided conversation? Is it being implied that "mean don't mind being sexually harassed, in fact they enjoy it?" Is it implied that manipulation of men by means of sex is not common? Isn't it a double-standard to consider female-on-male assault such a edge case that it is not worth discussing?
I'm not trying to counter any of the debate put forth so far, nor argue on anything approximating the misogynists who claim that women are "equally disgusting," but when we're hitting the high points raised by generalizations, we do lose quite a bit of nuance around the very fluid nature of human sexuality in both primary genders, not even considering GQ and GF variants.
In response to the James Pollock debate – Of course it's never the victim's fault in the event of an assault, never, not ever. As Penn Jillette said "people should be able to walk naked freely in public and feel safe in their person." I agree with that ideology. Clearly in practice, we're still a bit away from humans being able to handle that.
@Jonathan Kamens
I think "creeping" is a lot less vague than you seem to think it is.
Those are just words. If it is so clear cut what "creeping" is, then define it, in english. You can't just declare "well, this concept is clear" if no definition exists. If a definition does exist, there is no need to make such a statement, you could instead simply quote the definition.
@ Jonathan Kamens,
I accept your offer. Define "creepy" in a way which does not refer to the reaction of the recipient. Provide us with an objective definition which we can all use to further this discussion. Be sure to differentiate clearly between acceptable behavior and unacceptable "creeping". There can be no confusing the two if we are to foist the wrath of the intertrons upon violators.
"One of your consistent themes is the obligation of the creeped-upon to give feedback to the creepers, for the good of society in general and for their own good."
No.
"You took this to a nauseating and repugnant extreme by suggesting a rape victim who doesn't report her rape (as many don't) is responsible for subsequent rapes."
No.
"But strangers are not entitled to our explanations."
Agreed.
"You've been arguing that we can't expect people to adjust their behavior if people don't give feedback."
No. Only vaguely close. People's behavior won't change in the way we prefer unless they know what that is. Further, this seems common-sense.
"When women identify conduct that makes them uncomfortable, they are dismissed as bitches and whiners and overreactors and people trying malevolently to alter the inherent qualities of men and so forth."
My argument is that this is because it doesn't happen enough. The example I used is how 30 years ago, if you asked someone to please not create carcinogenic smoke in your vicinity, you'd be seen as a whiner or overreactor or a person trying to interfere with that person's right to smoke. Eventually, enough people expressed a desire that people not smoke around them, and it stuck. Yes, the first people who stood up for what was right were treated rather shabbily. This seems to be something that always happens when people first start to complain about a social evil. It is what it is.
"For the most part, women are faced with hatred if they articulate what makes them uncomfortable."
I don't think that this is true. Not that they don't get faced with hatred for standing up for themselves, but that such a response is "the most part". As has been pointed out by other commenters, a lot depends on the presentation. "don't touch me without my permission" is an entirely reasonable demand to make; most men are willing and able to comply, and many are even prepared to act to control this behavior in others. However, "don't be creepy" is not a reasonable demand, because while some behaviors are objectively creepy, there are a number of factors which are entirely subjective and a number which are entirely beyond the control of the men so labeled.
"And now you pile on scorn if they don't."
Again, the decision to speak up is a personal one, and not mine to make. BUT, if you want things to change, you have to stand up and identify what changes you want. This is not scorn, this is pointing out that wishing for change but taking no steps to achieve it will not work.
No, I don't. And if you truly don't understand why, then there is no point in us conversing any further.
@Tarrou:
I give you credit for not saying "emotional," like somebody did, or trotting out "mangina." But you're merely proving my point. My premise is that people react with irrational anger to discussions of actual sexual harassment — groping, stalking, not taking no for an answer, etc. You react with angry references to themes I haven't raised and arguments I haven't made, suggesting that because I talk about this, I must be a full supporter of how every person has ever used the terms "privilege" and "rape culture." Rather than address my point — that people who feel they are owed an explanation for why their conduct bothers people are "entitled" — you attack the term by associating it with other terms you don't like. This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about .
So, Tarrou — or, excuse me, to use your tone, oooooooh, Tarrou — what exactly is incorrect, or unfair, or unreasonable, about using the word "entitled" to describe the attitude that women have an obligation to explain to men why their conduct comes off as creepy, or such men have a right to expect such explanations?
After which, as others have pointed out, she was fired, and widely reviled, and her conduct openly debated, including by many who were able to voice their opinion that her behavior was narcissistic and unreasonable.
This is my point: some men take examples like that and use them to generalize that all complaints or concerns about conduct are false, unfair, unreasonable, or disproportionate. Such men, ironically, are just as sensitive to terminology as they fear women will be — observe your reaction to the word "entitlement" and your seething resentment of terms I haven't even used once. The argument seems to be "I am angry about women complaining about being groped or stalked or dirty-talked by strangers because talking about how that's not right may lead to a world when my innocent behavior could be misconstrued." Also, are women not facing being "attacked nationally" if they talk about harassment? See, again, the coverage of the "elevator incident," in which a shitstorm of socially stunted fury followed a mild "guys, don't do that."
We don't agree on that point because it's a strawman. I haven't made the argument. My point has been that this subject — harassment in this culture — is met my incoherent and irrational fury. In service of that argument I've linked to examples of conduct like groping and lifting and stalking and not accepting "no." You've responded to that by getting angry because maybe there's some conduct sometime that's unclear that could offend some woman. In other words, you've made my point for me.
"Let me ask you a question that might make you a little uncomfortable. Do you fear being raped? Do you take steps, daily, to make sure that you can get out of a situation if it looks like you might get raped if you don't run quickly and effectively?"
I'm not James Pollock, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, I do. And yes, I do. In my case, it means:
1. I never leave the house without my drivers license
2. Whenever circumstances force me to be alone in a public place near women I don't know, I scrupulously avoid any possibility of eye contact with any of them, and depart immediately and quickly after concluding my business.
3. I never, ever, ever, no matter what the inducement might be, visit my family in Ann Arbor
Running wouldn't have helped, in my case, because the cops would have just chased me and probably shot me (although if I'd been shot, at least I'd have gone to a hospital, where I probably wouldn't have been raped, the way I was when they stripped my clothes off, re-chained my wrists and ankles, and then threw me into a cell with violent predators, and then stood by the door watching events take their course and laughing).
The woman who accused me of "stalking" her and sicced the police on me? Don't know who she was. I certainly never spoke to her, or touched her, or approached her. I couldn't have picked her out of a line-up if my life depended on it. She was just one of the women who were having lunch in the same food court as I was, that day, and decided for some reason I've never understood that I was a threat to her, even though I was just eating my lunch. (Yeah, I probably looked at her. I didn't keep my eyes entirely on my burger the whole time. But I certainly wasn't staring or leering…if I had been staring at somebody, I'd at least be able to have guessed in retrospect which one of the women in the food court had complained.)
But more than 20 years later, if I'm ever caught setting foot within a kilometer of any part of the University of Michigan campus, I could still be arrested for it. And then I'd almost certainly be gang-raped again. (Of course, now that I'm an adult and have a job and can afford a lawyer, I could probably get the lifetime ban from setting foot within most of the city overturned in court. But the arrest and the gang-rape would still happen first.)
I have some sympathy for people whose horrific past experiences make them hypersensitive. After all, even in a completely different time zone than the original incident, and with all the protective instincts that adulthood has given me which I didn't have at 15, I still get panic attacks whenever I see police. And the level of precautionary measures I have to take when in the presence of women I don't know would probably strike some people as insane. But I'm not calling for all the jails to be closed, nor am I saying that that women should have to put up with whatever happens to them, just because if such extreme positions had been in place when I was a 15 year-old victim of some unknown woman's hysterical paranoia and the legal system's willingness to indulge that paranoia with violence, I wouldn't have been raped.
But I do have a problem with people who refuse to draw a bright line between behavior that constitutes _assault_, and behavior that merely pushes another person's unknown and unknowable internal "creep" triggers.
James – My apologies for posting publicly, but I don't see any way to send you an email.
What I hear from you over and over again in the posts above is
1. "I don't understand, explain it to me."
2. "You misunderstand me, ."
3. "I am owed an explanation."
4. "You don't understand, my case is different. But your differences aren't significant."
5. "You're not listening to me."
Taking those points in order:
1. You're failing to make any effective analysis of the things offered you. At this point most reasonable people have ceased trying.
2. You might not believe it, but I think we do understand you. The problem is that what you think you are doing and what we think you are doing are different, and you don't want to hear that (see point 1).
3. Not past a certain point you're not (see points 1 and 2). And you're certainly not going to get any from me; were you standing before me accused of harassment I'd long ago have stopped talking and told you in simple english not to approach the offended person period. Obviously this isn't the case here, but my point is the same – you're not listening, you're not understanding, and no further consideration is due you.
4. Everyone's case is different in detail, few are significantly different. You seem to understand this with respect to other people but not with respect to yourself. You should work on that. See point 3.
5. Not any more I'm not, nor are most of the folks who were participating here. That's a clue; use it.
"I accept your offer. Define "creepy" in a way which does not refer to the reaction of the recipient."
I'll tackle this from the other direction, by identifying behaviors that are always objectively over-the-line.
1. Touching someone without their consent.
2. Attempting to overcome the function of clothing, whether there's touching or not. (i.e., no looking up skirts, down blouses, or use of TSA scanning equipment.)
3. Failure to take "no" for an answer BUT "no" has to be clear and unambiguous; for example, "not now" or "I don't think so" are not "no". "Fuck off", "leave me alone", and "go away" are "no". Working with our theme of social awkwardness and difficulty in reading signals, implied "no" is not "no". For example "Have you met my husband" is not "no".
4. Attempting to become alone with someone is wrong. Being alone by chance or the actions of other persons is not wrong.
5. Taking pictures of someone without asking is wrong, unless you are in an area where picture-taking is reasonably expected (i.e., Masquerade).
That's all I came up with in 10 minutes of trying. I think all 5 could get at least 50% agreement. There might be others. Suggestions?
It's not creepy to continue hitting on someone after they have mentioned, or even introduced, a boyfriend or husband?
I accept that there are people who have open relationships, and some places where one might anticipate that the people present have open relationships. But to me, saying that this is not a clear signal fits into the category of saying "hey, I heard of a guy who walked up to a girl and said 'nice ass, wanna fuck?', and she laughed, so that must be OK some of the time."
I'm not saying that someone who continues to hit on someone after she mentions or introduces a husband or boyfriend needs to be arrested. I'm saying I have no qualms about calling them a creeper.
Mr. Simmons, at the risk of repeating #2, I grow tired of having to defend myself against people who complain about positions I have not taken, a group you have joined with #'s 3 and 4 at least, and probably #1 as well, depending on what you are actually referring to.
I did not get angry until I was falsely accused of supporting rape.
I was bullied as a child, I will not be bullied now.
@James Pollock:
You were accused not of supporting rape, but of blaming the victim for the rape, because you said the following to a rape victim (who was a child at the time of the assault):
That's verbatim, and pretty damn unambiguous.
And… since you keep asking people to clarify what constitutes creeping and harassing behavior, that's exactly what so many people been trying to do throughout this comment thread. Ken and others even posted a bunch of helpful links.
(FSM help me, I can't believe I've rejoined this discussion.)
Personally, I could see myself as the subject of such a discussion in the past. The most solid, objective definition of "creepy" that I have found is "unaware of or uncaring about what behaviors are likely to make others uncomfortable", the former of which I would have easily fit into in the past.
I can't possibly identify with the sort of people whose messages show up on "Fat, Ugly, or Slutty", but when I read about people raising torches and pitchforks for that guy who asked a girl in an elevator if she wanted to talk over some coffee at his hotel room at a con, I wince, because I could have easily, ignorantly stumbled into a similar (or worse) situation with no intention to make anyone uncomfortable.
Hearing through the grapevine that you've been identified by someone as creepy over a particular behavior, with the implication that they've alerted others, is pretty humiliating. I can't imagine the kind of shame that people who are identified as such online feel. Given my previous issues with depression (which tied into my creepiness), I probably would not be alive right now had I experienced something like that a few years ago.
That's not to say that nobody needs to be shamed, or that women should just shut up about it. I think it needs to be talked about, regardless of the emotional consequences. That's just my perspective about why people might get uncomfortable/angry about such a discussion.
Hmmm… some thoughts, stream of consciousness style. I did read (mostly) the whole thread, but replying to individuals would take too long.
The initial question is why is there so much anger and hostility. I think we've, over the course of this thread, identified 3 main groups in the "male geek culture":
1) Those who were (and may still be) socially awkward, but have learned the rules and perhaps managed to acquire a partner of their own.
2) Those who are socially awkward and have either not learned the rules or have learned them but have not been successful at applying them.
3) Those who are socially awkward, have learned the rules and don't care or refuse to apply them.
Of these 3 groups, group 3 are the ones that cause a majority of the issues at hand, and certainly a vast majority of the more egregious issues (actual assault for example). Group 2 may cause these incidents from time to time, but largely do not intend to (and those that do intend to eventually fall into group 3). Group 1 may have caused such incidents in the past, but again likely unintentionally and don't do so now.
So Cause of Anger #1 is that when we talk about a problem with "geek culture", we're really talking about a problem with "primarily the 3rd but also the 2nd group and largely the male subset of those groups" but we are accusing an entire culture.
Venturing further, for many members of group 1 and 2, early social training hammered home a disdain for people who treat others badly. Either directly from parents, or via fantasy stories imparting a model of what a "hero" does (which includes not treating others badly). For some (many?) this manifests in genuine anger, rage and frustration at those who mistreat others*.
Additionally there are a number of different "creepy" charges that are all lumped together in these discussions under the same banner of mistreatment. These range from the obviously inappropriate (physical violation, obscene comments / gestures, stalking) to the more innocuous (poorly timed or phrased directed comments, lingering stares) to the downright debatable (dongle jokes in a private conversation) to the almost unknowable (yes it would be extremely frustrating to be hit on by men all weekend long, but baring the stalkers, each individual man is only interacting with you once, it is unfair to take their advance and combine it into all the others when they would have no way of knowing that you've been hit on 50 times earlier). All of those incidents are grouped together in these discussions under the heading of creepy behavior and the people who engage in them as creepers who by definition are mistreating their fellow human beings.
Cause of Anger #2: Geeks have a general aversion to people who mistreat others. The definition of the problem is defined to include sometimes accidental or innocuous behavior and then ascribed to intentional malice painted across the entire geek membership. Said geeks in moments of self examination find their own behaviors within that problem (though usually and generally the innocuous or unintentional) and feel anger both internally for having engaged in behavior that mistreated another and then directed externally at the accusation that this was some sort of malicious intent.
So what are the causes of the problem? Well as noted already in this thread, we have lack of social skills in general (interacting with another person), lack of experience applying the social skill (offering a drink might be a successful tactic, but not as a pestering technique), general immaturity (let's face it, cons are largely dominated by the teen / young adult crowd), mixed or misunderstood signals and lastly I think there is a bit of "double standard" going on, but not in an external capacity, it's internal to the male geek and more accurately would be described as projection. Allow me to explain.
Before it apparently started putting people in the hospital (seriously I found this while double checking my term, WTF geeks?), a common sight at (at least anime) cons was "glomping" which generally involved and unexpected, random and enthusiastic hug followed by a quick departure. As a general rule, the glomping was performed by younger female attendees and while they targeted no specific sex, it was in many cases at the least not a particularly unwelcome event for the lonely and socially awkward male attendees. The "double standard" comes in when these socially awkward male attendees then project their general appreciation for an unexpected physical contact with the opposite sex to other attendees, especially if they have previously witnessed that attendee being "glomped" and not reacting poorly to it. This boils down to more poor social skills, but this particular problem is I think unique to how socially awkward men and women perceive physical contact with the opposite sex so deserves special mention considering that it will often be presented as a "double standard".
So what are the solutions? I don't know that there are many easy ones. Like most social changes, it's going to take time and patience. For one, we will have to accept that some people just don't want to change, and the only option is to ostracise those people. Which means that yes, the geek community will need to learn to be exclusionary, and we'll have to accept that we will be hurting some people for that, acknowledge the anger that will cause and stand fast regardless without being dismissive.
The other thing we need to recognize (both from a solving the problem and highlighting the problem perspective) is that members of group 3, while they cause the majority of the incidents really are a minority. Yes, almost every female geek has a story of some creepy guy who couldn't take a hint at a con. And I would wager that if we got together and compared notes, we'd find that a vast majority of those stories are about the same few attendees. It's like the "That Guy" problem for D&D groups. Every group has had or played with "That Guy", and usually they kick "That Guy" out, so what happens is in a local area, every groups has a "That Guy" story, but it's often the same guy because they guy gets kicked from unaware group to unaware group until no one will let them in anymore. So is it with the Group 3 creeps. They get rebuffed and eventually dispensed with and they move on to a new person. I would argue that in a con of a few thousand people it would only take maybe 10 Group 3 creeps to give more than 50% of the attendees a creeper story either directly or indirectly.
Next, Mr. Pollock is correct, the female attendees will need to speak up and speak clearly. Doing it after the fact will not likely help because most of the people you speak to after the fact will not be the people likely to accost you at the con (at least I presume you don't intentionally hang out with creeps). That means when someone creeps you out at the con, you need to rebuff them clearly, strongly and definitively. Note this does not mean calling con security because the guy is number 452 to proposition you today, nor does it include publicly shaming the person because they made a dongle joke in a private conversation, but it does mean being clear. Start with a definitive "No", followed by a quick reason for the rebuff "That's inappropriate / You're not my type" for the more innocuous offences or summoning con staff / security for the more egregious or persistent offenders. But in all cases the response should be measured to the offence. A gentle rebuff of the dongle jokers will likely do you much better than summoning the con staff. Most people don't intend to offend and will apologise and even change their behavior if pointed out, but will likely think you're off your rocker and dismiss you out of hand if you go making a public fuss over a private joke. Remember, only a small majority of people are actually malicious.
Next, geek guys are on the hook here. If you see a con attendee clearly uncomfortable, step in a make sure everything is ok. But more importantly, guys with better social skills and more mature guys need to take the younger or less experienced guys under your wing a bit. Many hobbies and sub cultures have a hierarchy of older members teaching younger members both the hobby and how to behave. The geek culture does not appear to have this as much (perhaps because adults interested in geek pursuits was up until relatively recently a social faux pas). But just as women need to convey clear signals, we men need to police our own and make sure they understand what is right and wrong.
Ok, I think that's a big enough wall of text for one comment. Sorry Ken.
[*Side note: Incidentally it also explains the frequency and popularity of damsel in distress tropes. I never could reconcile the claim that the popularity of such tropes was a "patriarchy" thing or some sort of unconscious suppression of women. Rather for the segment of society which reads or watches such stories for pleasure (rather than for social conformity), such scenarios stir inner anger and adrenaline. They grip and pull at the reader and invoke emotional responses appropriate to the story. It's the literary equivalent of the "scary jump cut" that most horror movies use. It's also a cause of some trouble in previously disturbed individual as the adrenaline high that can be experienced by feeling the appropriate emotions over the scenarios can in time be associated with feeling the adrenaline high over the scenario rather than the emotions the scenario is supposed to invoke. End side note]
"It's not creepy to continue hitting on someone after they have mentioned, or even introduced, a boyfriend or husband?"
My local SF con has had multiple polyamory panels every year for at least a decade, so no, being introduced to someone's husband at that event is not in and of itself an unambiguous "no". Persisting after a clear and unambiguous "no" is always wrong.
"I'm not saying that someone who continues to hit on someone after she mentions or introduces a husband or boyfriend needs to be arrested. I'm saying I have no qualms about calling them a creeper."
Fine, but that's not what I was making a list of. Since we seem to have a problem of definition with somethings that are always OK, and some things that are never OK, and a fuzzy gray area in between of things that might be OK in some situations and aren't OK in others, I started on the list of things that are ALWAYS WRONG, which is not at all the same as saying things not on the list are ALWAYS RIGHT.
Now, I'll say that continuing to pursue someone after being introduced to the husband is probably a fruitless endeavor and frequently quite stupid as well for a number of reasons, but the risk of victimization seems low (for the wife, I mean… the pursuer may well be in real danger if he persists. I can only assume you're OK with this kind of victimization. And also with blaming the victim for his actions.)
"saying … 'nice ass, wanna fuck?', … must be OK some of the time."
Not relevant, but yes, this IS OK some of the time. Quite rarely, but yes, some couples HAVE reached a point of comfort with each other that the he part of the couple can say this to the she part of the couple. Now, I'd say that the decision of whether it's OK in any specific instance rests in the person whose ass is being discussed. Are you suggesting we should take that decision away from her?
@James Pollock:
"It is ALSO true that to eradicate this type of behavior, the men who are doing it need to re-examine their motivations and behaviors, but that's something I have no influence over beyond making intercessions when called."
You absolutely have influence, and that you refuse to use it (or even to see it) makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Everyone could do with a little more courage being encouraged. Are there vague, grey edges to this problem? Of course there are, and problems of subjectivity occur there. I'm sure there's some named law that defines the approach of "I'm not sure how to operate in the grey area, therefore I won't touch the black-and-white". Probably named after Kitty Genovese.
You dismissed my suggestion that WORDS be used to minimize confusion, which is pretty rich for a person who's probably posted several thousand words in this thread (and on an op/ed whose author's motto is likely "more speech, and make it a double!"). No one is looking for the perfect, no-more-problems solution, because it doesn't exist. IMPROVEMENT is the name of the game.
You could go up to a person you witness doing something inappropriate, and say, "I do not think that means what you think it means." Direct, to the point, and even a bit geeky!
Or you could wear a ribbon: http://backupribbonproject.wordpress.com/
Or you could indulge in some lesson-teaching creepyness of your own – I live in the SF area, and you'd be surprised how many males learn the "stop creeping women out" lesson just from one experience with a gay man who crosses THEIR boundaries. Pretend to be gay (or really be gay and intentionally hit on a straight guy) and let the creeper experience it from the other side. Because then, even the "subjective grey experience" of having someone "simply sit down next to you at a bar and ask "can I buy you a drink"" can seem a little more black-and-white. (The appropriate first line to submit to anyone you're looking to buy a drink for is not "can I buy you a drink" – it's "Hi, I'm ." What makes the line "can I buy you a drink" creepy is the fact that you don't know the person. And even a person who doesn't find that line particularly creepy isn't going to be offended if you actually introduce yourself first. ("Oh, darn, I really wanted you to offer to buy me a drink without sharing your name!"??))
James:
We aren't trying to bully you, we are just trying to pound some sense into you since more subtle means aren't working.
For example, you said:
Hell YES IT IS! A person indicating that they are in a committed relationship is the single most common way to politely say "fuck off, I'm not interested".
Why do you think so many unmarried women often will have a 'wedding' ring or 'engagement' ring that they can wear in social settings with strangers just to get those who actually have a clue to not bother them?
Again with the elevator.
The person in question made a video in which she mentioned, in passing, a person approaching her in an elevator at 4 in the morning, alone, after she said she was going back to her room. She said "guys, don't do that." She was, in fact, doing the sort of thing James apparently thinks women should do: explain creeper behavior. She did not name the person.
This has been widely characterized – like you just did — as bringing out "torches and pitchforks." You add on the guilt trip that identifying such conduct and asking people not to do it might drive a depressed person to suicide.
This is exactly what I am talking about.
@Steve Simmons
Agreed on all points.
"You were accused not of supporting rape, but of blaming the victim for the rape, because you said the following to a rape victim (who was a child at the time of the assault)"
Go further upthread, you're quoting from the angry response to being accused of supporting rape.
Then, there's you making wrong (and wrongheaded) complaints about what I said, which, let me be clear, does not, did not, and never will include blaming a rape victim for her rape.
"since you keep asking people to clarify what constitutes creeping and harassing behavior"
Since I haven't done this, direct your righteous indignation elsewhere.
No. I'm saying that I am completely comfortable saying that someone who goes up to a stranger and says "nice ass" is a creeper. My comfort in making that value judgment is not diminished, in the least, by the idea that maybe there is some specific woman out there who will not be offended by some specific man saying it to her in some specific situation. I am not removing agency from that hypothetical woman. I am suggesting that the [dubious, or at least vastly overstated] hypothetical existence of the woman is not some sort of magic defense to the natural and probable social consequences of actions. I am suggesting that "it's unfair to be branded a creeper when I engage in conduct that 98% of people find creepy, because there's a 2% out there" is an unconvincing intellectual construct used stubbornly to persist in behavior that the person knows most people will find uncomfortable, because that person is more interested in the imagined 2% chance of getting laid than in the impact of his actions on the other 98%.
@Ken
I am absolutely for her talking about and criticizing that behavior if it made her uncomfortable.
Perhaps I am remembering the incident incorrectly, but didn't someone else dox this person? Didn't a bunch of other people jump on and harass this person, calling him a rapist? That was what I was referring to, not the initial discussion.
@James Pollock
So, pulling someone out of harms way is over-the-line? A kid is about to walk into traffic and I yank her out of the way of an oncoming car. According to your definition, that is creepy behavior, because it is "always objectively over-the-line."
Clothing's primary function is as a way to keep warm, or block the sun. I would argue that this definition is awkward at best.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. Your own attempt at defining a definitive "no" has exceptions. Frankly, I found this attempt humorous.
This negates all attempts at being forward with a woman. It essentially criminalizes male sexuality since male sexual freedom involves convincing a woman that she is physically safe enough to be alone with you. It also presumes that women are not safe to be alone around your average man, a biased presumption if I've ever seen one.
This makes just about any photojournalists behavior wrong, a bad idea considering how much the pervasiveness of cameras has helped combat crime. This rule tells me I can't take pictures of someone else's abuse (physical, or verbal with video) in a private space.
Note that I haven't even addressed the fact that making specific behaviors "wrong" is entirely the wrong way to go about defining "creepy". Most people will have other behaviors that they wish to add to the definition. If a definition can be added to or modified by anyone, it is meaningless.
"You dismissed my suggestion that WORDS be used to minimize confusion, which is pretty rich for a person who's probably posted several thousand words in this thread"
Did all those words minimize confusion? They did not.
@InnocentBystander
Wow, your writing is about the most well-reasoned response I've seen to cut through the bullshit on this issue and call spades spades. I wouldn't say it's ok to leave things as-is and throw our hands up… we still need to encourage people to not be terrible when we can… and stand up for people who are being systematically mistreated. But I think you really nailed the why of it.
"Why do you think so many unmarried women often will have a 'wedding' ring or 'engagement' ring that they can wear in social settings with strangers just to get those who actually have a clue to not bother them?"
Mr. Weaver, that's two arguments against your position here (besides the context which I've already addressed in my response to Ken).
First, some people don't actually have a clue. Saying "no" (or "fuck off") cannot be misinterpreted as anything else. Wearing a ring says unambiguously "I have a ring", and can be misinterpreted several different ways.
Second, if people who aren't married are wearing them, then they aren't even a reliable statement of "I already have a significant other".
James, you've pretty much invited Jeremy's response by adherence to the "I can imagine scenarios where hypothetical women wouldn't be offended by this" approach.
The "it's not necessarily creepy to continue to hit on a woman after she mentions her husband, because I know some people in open relationships" dodge invites the silly response "it's not creepy to touch strangers without their consent because, gosh, what about saving them from a car about to hit them?", which is merely a slight exaggeration of the same thing.
Hence, creepers can justify following the advice in their sticky PUA manuals about touching strange woman to establish dominance, because they can construct a hypothetical where what if they were bravely pushing them out of the way of a leaping puma, that wouldn't be creepy, SO THERE.
It's a ludicrous and transparent dodge. That's why I feel perfectly comfortable saying that people who continue to hit on strangers after they mention a spouse or SO — or people who get all touchy with strangers — are creepers, whatever imaginative scenario I can construct in which they aren't.
@Ken:
If you'd like a weird kicker for this, after I made my last post last night, I ended up drifting through the USEnet archives for some groups I participated in back in the early 90's.
We called the borderline guys who make people uncomfortable "puppies" instead of "creepers" but it's almost depressing how little the actual discussion has changed.
I guess on the bright side, it's a wider conversation than just the people on USENet.
Wow, this whole thread eerily reminds me of a guy from my first year of law school–I'll call him "John." John had some social problems of his own, but a professor had asked a female friend of mine to spend some time with him to give him some remedial help in a couple of classes. They only met a few times, because it always went the same way. As my friend tried explaining the concepts to John, he would become increasingly angry, until he would explode with fury and yell "JUST TELL ME THE RULES!" John did not return after first year.
That seems to me the stance of many of the "creeper defenders," for lack of a better term. But there are no hard and fast rules. This is a case where there is a veto of one. As Ken has said, there are undoubtedly women in the world who would react positively to a crude come-on from a stranger. The overwhelming majority, it would seem, don't. But here's the thing: people are allowed to be offended by anything they like. Actions they take afterward may or may not be rightful, but offense is offense. Certain cons or other private entities may have policies they feel will help women feel more welcome: respect them. While you're at it, respect women. No one is attempting to criminalize male sexuality. Well, unless your idea of male sexuality is to identify a target, try to isolate her from a pack, and then overcome her resistance. If that's your idea of male sexuality, then yeah, it might border on criminal at times.
I'm a dude (used advisedly). I've been rejected. Have I been creepy at times? Absolutely, especially after a couple drinks. But this is not hard, nor should there be this level of outrage, at least in my very ill-informed opinion.
@Ken
It seems as though my recollection of that incident is false, and I severely undermined the point that I was trying to make with it. I would appreciate it you would allow me to retract my posts on the matter, but given that you quoted me to support your point, I would understand if you did not.
I have learned the hard way that gender is a more-fundamental layer of people's worldviews than other things. Even in the LGB community, T ends up as an afterthought. (Below B, which is itself like LG Lite to some people.) Fluid gender or non-essentialist (where essentialism would say "your body defines your social role") interpretations corrode the basis of identity–what is "gay" in a many-gendered world?
All of which is why I believe that such anger comes out: because it is viewed as a gendered thing, harassment and allegations of same are striking at this deep root of self-identity.
Some of the comments here I skimmed, and I'm not sure we're looking at the same world. I can in no way accept that approaching and kissing a stranger's neck is a mere "social awkwardness" thing. Even if I didn't appreciate the power of a well-placed kiss before getting married, it was pretty obvious (as a socially awkward male-bodied person) that was not something to do. Freedom to swing your lips ends well before their neck begins.
Finally, sex is not my "#1 prime directive" in any way in spite of my genetics, but by now I'm used to being in the invisible 10% or so.
" A kid is about to walk into traffic and I yank her out of the way of an oncoming car."
Yes, handling someone else's kid is wrong, always. Letting them be run over is ALSO wrong.
You takes your pick and you takes your chances.
"Clothing's primary function is as a way to keep warm, or block the sun. I would argue that this definition is awkward at best."
It's a work in progress. I think your definition is flawed, at best, also.
"This negates all attempts at being forward with a woman. It essentially criminalizes male sexuality since male sexual freedom involves convincing a woman that she is physically safe enough to be alone with you."
Yeah, there's a flaw in that one… it needs a "without consent" in there somewhere.
"This makes just about any photojournalists behavior wrong"
Photojournalists generally ask permission when it's feasible to do so. I cut a discussion of paparazzi to keep it simple.
"This rule tells me I can't take pictures of someone else's abuse (physical, or verbal with video) in a private space."
Without asking.
"Note that I haven't even addressed the fact that making specific behaviors "wrong" is entirely the wrong way to go about defining "creepy"."
Couple of problems there!
First, I'm not attempting to MAKE behaviors "wrong". I'm attempting to list behaviors that already have broad consensus as being "wrong".
Second, I'm not attempting to define "creepy". If you believe, as I do, that "creepy" is too broad and subjective a concept to be defined in a way that satisfy a general consensus, then the next best thing is to build categories on which there is general consensus.
"Most people will have other behaviors that they wish to add to the definition."
Yes, as noted above, building a consensus, objective definition of "creepy" is probably not possible, so this is something else. I did, after all, solicit additions to this list.
"If a definition can be added to or modified by anyone, it is meaningless."
Yes. As above.
Props all the way to Aelfric.
"The "it's not necessarily creepy to continue to hit on a woman after she mentions her husband, because I know some people in open relationships" dodge"
Ken, I really expected better of you. I know you are NOT stupid, so you MUST be mischaracterizing this argument by intention. If the context is a place where polyamorous people are known to gather, then assuming that persons present there may be polyamorous is not a "dodge".
And AGAIN you substitute the broad term "creepy" for the more specific "always unambiguously wrong", AFTER being called on it once before.
"Hence, creepers can justify following the advice in their sticky PUA manuals about touching strange woman to establish dominance, because they can construct a hypothetical where what if they were bravely pushing them out of the way of a leaping puma, that wouldn't be creepy, SO THERE."
I suppose that if the presence of a puma can be objectively verified, they might have a point. Otherwise, HUH? (Also, see my response to Jeremy on his points)
"That's why I feel perfectly comfortable saying that people who continue to hit on strangers after they mention a spouse or SO — or people who get all touchy with strangers — are creepers, whatever imaginative scenario I can construct in which they aren't."
And again, OK, but not relevant. For all I care, you can state your clear and unswerving opinion that all left-handers are creepers, that people who bowl regularly are creepers, or that people who spend too much time on the Internet are creepers. That's your opinion, you're welcome to it… but it's not responsive to anything I wrote.
So, this thread is now: "James Pollack is a (creeper/troll/fabulously entitled nerd/brilliant writer/ethical genius) who must be (listened to/repeatedly talked down by/feted by all and sundry), and is a perfect example of Ken's original thesis. So, to answer Ken, "Keep watering the lawn, they're not done jumping yet."
My wife, who was a gamer for a while years ago, said to me: "James is the poster child for the casual creeper. Not the actually agressive, dangerous ones, but the man-children who enable their behavior." I concur. The constant restating of position while claiming that the two statements are materially different, the nit-picking over potential differences in meaning while ignoring the actual usage of the words in question, the unwillingness to examine his own behavior in light of the feedback that he is asking for and rejecting gout of hand, all lead me to believe that further conversation with him is simply troll-feeding, and ultimately without end. In previous threads I have seen him persist in the same way, so I don't think this is itself an example of the extreem over-reaction that Ken began with, but it is exactly the sorts of conversations that drives me out of web-sites: endlessly arguing over minutia while ignoring the actual discussion at hand.
James Pollock:
The problem is not with the contents of the list of bad behaviors. The problem is with the concept of the list and the approach to its construction. You are trying to build an objective list of an inherently subjective set (that set being 'acceptable actions.') You appear to be trying to do the same thing within the comment thread itself – to find an objective context or interpretation which makes some of your statements acceptable or palatable or correct in an inarguable, fact-based fashion.
Human interactions don't operate on pure reason. They aren't objective. They are aren't fact-based. Your approach – both in the list construction and your approach to your critics in this conversation – is doomed to failure before it starts. Because no, it's not as simple as "Yes, handling someone else's kid is wrong, always." Picking a kid up to get them out of the way of a runaway truck is about as unambiguously correct an action as interactions-between-two-people get, while picking up a stranger's child unprompted in any other situation would be pretty far on the wrong end of the scale. Context matters, as do the emotions, opinions, and perceptions of the people involved. Narrowing the interpretation of your words in this thread to a laser-focus in which you are technically correct will not change the fact that the people you're talking to found your words harmful and abhorrent; in communication the message sent counts for much, much less than the message received.
In building a list of 'what to do' you cannot set absolute, objective definitions. It doesn't matter if you can pin down a 1-in-1000 anomaly where a particular action is good or bad that goes against the general trend; if your goal is actually to create a 'guide to general behavior' list you need to follow the strongest trends and deliberately discard the anomalies. If there are 50 situations in which touching a stranger is wrong, bad or creepy and 1 in which it is okay and welcome, a [i]useful[/i] list will toss that 1 out the window and go with the dominant trend of 50-strong situations where 'it's not okay to do this.' You pay lip service to this in your post of 9:46 AM, that you want to build a "general consensus", but when people are offering solid criticisms you are retreating into hyper-specific, extreme counterexamples. You're saying one thing and doing another, and that's not helping you communicate clearly either.
@ Ken
"My premise is that people react with irrational anger to discussions of actual sexual harassment"
And my premise is that people react with justifiable and rational anger to false, misunderstood, and oversensitive charges of sexual harassment. The two are not mutually exclusive. It is the very strength and subjectivity of the charge which causes this duality.
"The argument seems to be "I am angry about women complaining about being groped or stalked or dirty-talked by strangers because talking about how that's not right may lead to a world when my innocent behavior could be misconstrued.""
The argument is that I am concerned that the equivocation of words like "harassment" and "creepy" lead to people conflating women being groped with women being looked at. If women complain about being groped, that is legitimate, shameful and criminal. I support punishing the offenders both legally and socially. I decry any pushback or blaming of women for this behavior. In this case, I am angry at presumptuous men, not complaining women.
But we are not dealing solely with assault, we are dealing with a huge area of sensitive human interaction. And just as harassment gets conflated with rape, now "creepiness" is being conflated with harassment. The two are distinct, and to the degree (whatever it be) that paranoia over harassment leads to the stigmatization of normal masculinity, I am angry about that.
I don't see any of this as constructive. I think we probably agree to a very high degree about what behavior is appropriate and what is not, but we seem to disagree about how to get there. I don't think creating vague and subjective categories with which to tar our internet enemies with is anything more than partisanship.
Whatever the reason, this is a delicate and highly charged subject. Men get angry at being compared to rapists. And some people seem to think that any sort of caution short of "lynch anything with a penis" is rape apology. Do note that a couple women above have specifically introduced their own rape as a means of shutting down the discussion. Whatever Pollock's arguments' merits, or lack thereof, that takes the discussion to a dark place quickly.
What I'd like is a clear and understandable standard of acceptable behavior. I don't think we can do that perfectly, but it's worth trying. We can certainly improve on what we have. And the best way to do that is not to compare the vast majority of men to rapists and tar them as "creepers".
"My wife, who was a gamer for a while years ago, said to me: "James is the poster child for the casual creeper. Not the actually agressive, dangerous ones, but the man-children who enable their behavior."
Mr. Beaty (note that I spelled your name correctly), I say to you that your wife, who used to be a gamer, makes judgments about people without knowing a damn thing about them.
@James Pollock–you said "I say to you that your wife, who used to be a gamer, makes judgments about people without knowing a damn thing about them."
That's really sort of the crux of the matter, isn't it? The wife in question knows you as you have presented yourself here. She has made what is, to my mind, a not-unjustifiable judgment call. This is precisely what it is to deem an action "creepy:" to make a judgment based on available information, incomplete though it may be. Again, just a thought.
"This is precisely what it is to deem an action "creepy:" to make a judgment based on available information, incomplete though it may be. Again, just a thought."
And if you do this, do those so-labeled have no justification in objecting to being classed along with the gropers, stalkers, and rapists? Just another thought.
That is, assuming that they are not actually a groper, stalker, or rapist.
James Pollock–Object all you like. It's best not to be put in that situation in the first place, but it can happen via mistake or misunderstanding. I'm not sure exactly what punishment you think women deserve for the crime of mentally classifying you in an undesirable category, but I would just say it's really not that difficult to avoid.
I, for one, welcome our hypersexualized-yet-prudish psychic female overlords.
I think a very clear and understandable standard of acceptable behavior, one that can cover 100% of situations, even if 2% of people don't care much about such etiquette, would be the one where you don't make a sexual-social overture without having gained directly from the individual their name and at least ten pieces of information about them (again, directly from them), and having shared with them directly your name and at least ten pieces of information about yourself.
"Directly" means via dialogue with them – no assuming that because you've read all about the author/blogger/gamer/etc. that the universe has marked them as your soul mate and no dialogue is required.
Name-sharing (this should happen regardless of whether badges are being worn that already identify the name) provides a social cue demonstrating respect of the individual as a person, and not merely as potential partner, interesting tattoo, nice ass, etc.
Ten pieces of information in each direction means the dialogue has lasted long enough for each individual to have collected both verbal and sub-verbal data to inform their verbal and sub-verbal choices moving forward into a sexual-social conversation.
In other words, treat it like a professional interaction for the first five minutes, and then see where that takes you.
Ken, do you think I can take this to Kickstarter for funding, because I think I'm onto something…
James is correct, though. Rape is very clearly defined, as are assault and harassment.
I frequently identify people as "creepy" in one way or another, it's just a bad vibe I get and a sign that I should avoid those people. They are doubtless almost all very nice people, they just carry themselves in a way that people that have treated me badly in the past carried themselves.
Creepy is not a crime.
I was written up for sexually harassing a guy at work once. After nearly a week of having to listen to him describe his girlfriend and his interactions with her (e.g. "and she tastes so sweet when I go down on her") and so on he, having established his "straight cred" in his own mind, asked me "so how do you get to be gay."
I looked him straight in the eye and said "There's a test." He says "Really?" with that sweet gullible look this sort of boob can get. "Yea," I said, "the written is really easy but the orals are a _bitch_."
So how was it that four days of graphic sexual descriptions were okay in the mind of this guy, but one joke was totally out of line? Well that's because sexual harassment (as opposed to just being a dick) is unworkably subjective.
Then again, about a week and a half ago I was at a game where one of the guys kept on at some woman because she was Vegan. Of course she wasn't there as a player, she was there to watch while her friend (another girl) waited to step in as an NPC to try out gaming without having to commit to the scene. (The less said about that dynamic the better, I am not in that game any more.)
<blockquote cite="aelfric" But here's the thing: people are allowed to be offended by anything they like. Actions they take afterward may or may not be rightful, but offense is offense.
Sure, and no one (to my knowledge) is saying that people aren't allowed to be offended by anything they like. But when these discussions come up, they're not often about "can I be offended" they're usually about "what should be done about those people. As I noted above, usually those people is defined to include a lot of collateral damage, which then gets the collaterally included people justifiably offended and angered that they are being lumped into a category which in this thread alone includes actions as simple as asking if you would like a drink all the way up to honest to goodness child rape. That's a pretty broad brush. Everyone is allowed to be offended for any reason, but when you start talking about what to do about the people causing the offence, now you have to get into the discussion of "is the offence something worth creating a social, organizational or legal rule" for (and for that matter, there there already rules about it, see groping).
That's a generally good rule. Now, how do you initiate the interaction to obtain the said 10 items of information without being "creepy", especially considering that in this thread along we've had a declaration that asking someone if they want a drink can be creepy if they're offerer number 300 for the day.
Let's be honest here, most of the creepy guys are not going to turn out to be crazy people with no respect for boundaries, they're just guys with lousy social skills that have no idea how to even initiate that first interaction. To be fair, part of the problem is that these guys are approaching the interaction with an attempt at romantic relations rather than starting at friends, but see socially awkward.
"the one where you don't make a sexual-social overture without having gained directly from the individual their name and at least ten pieces of information about them"
Do you mean "sexual" or "social" by "sexual-social"? How do you obtain this ten pieces of information without making a social overture?
(Counting up and collecting these ten pieces of information sounds really stalker-y to me. If you make a go of it, however, I can see cons passing out little business-card-size scorecards where the pursuers might jot down their findings.).
Rather than making it a set list of ten, maybe you could set it up like a Bingo card. I can see it: The scene, the hotel bar at Bi-Mon-Sci-Fi-Con. The characters, Cad Caddington, III and Polly Pureheart. Cad and Polly are talking. Establishing shot: the bar is full of weirdly-costumed people. Close-up, Polly.
Polly: "yes, I have two brothers, one older and one younger, and a younger sister. I liked growing up in a big family, even if it did mean that I had to share a bedroom…" Polly continues talking, but the sound is muted almost all the way.
Close up, Cad's hands. He has a Bingo card, and he's filling in the "siblings?" box. Favorite author is already filled in (Heinlein), as is alma mater (UCLA, 2 years, dropout), and best friend's name (Elizabeth). several other entries are marked. One box that would make a bingo is open.
Narrator (as cad) "Oh, boy! All I need now is "favorite color" and I have bingo and can ask her up to my room!"
Polly's voice comes back up
Polly: "… and that's why I like blue so much."
Cad throws his arms in the air.
Cad: "YES!"
fade to black.
An addendum to my last post: It's also worth noting that for a lot of socially awkward guys, the simple act of even approaching and introducing yourself to a member of the opposite sex is a "sexual-social overture", so such a rule could lead to other creepy and stalkerish behavior, like hunting down the target of your affections on Twitfacespace to learn everything you can about them (ever run into one of these people? It's creepy as hell even to an outsider).
The problem with rules lawyering about phrasing and action is that tone and circumstance so often trump words. If a woman responds to a suggestive remark with the phrase "Have you met my husband?" the meaning is dependent on the tone and circumstance. If she says it angrily and firmly, there's pretty much no question it means 'no.' If she cocks her hip, smiles, looks at your crotch, then looks you in the eye with a bigger smile and says it as a question, she might be inviting you to a three-way. In either case, tone and attitude tell you what your next step should be.
Words aren't the issue, and there will never be agreement on it. A recognition of the social clues both given and received are what's required.
Being blind to them often leads one to creeper behavior. If you're fifteen, someone might take you aside and explain some of it to you. If you're thirty, most people will assume you're hopeless. Your mileage may vary, mine's been pretty consistent.
"Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood"
Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
But don't you know that no one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Baby, sometimes I'm so carefree
With a joy that's hard to hide
And sometimes it seems that all I have do is worry
Then you're bound to see my other side
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
If I seem edgy I want you to know
That I never mean to take it out on you
Life has it's problems and I get my share
And that's one thing I never meant to do
Because I love you
Oh, Oh baby don't you know I'm human
Have thoughts like any other one
Sometimes I find myself long regretting
Some foolish thing some little simple thing I've done
But I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Yes, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
Yes, I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
James: you're approaching this from the geekiest perspective possible, and it's evident that you don't understand social interactions on the whole. Interacting with another person is not like interacting with a videogame where there are ten specific pieces of information required in order to advance to stage 2 of the quest.
Social interaction is about guesswork and judging vibes. Knowing things about someone isn't "I know you have a brother and love blue," it's asking "how's your brother?" the next time you see them and getting them something blue for their birthday. You're trying to reduce an illogical system down to logical rules that are obviously absurd, which is probably why you're not succeeding in figuring out why you are so creepy.
And this is why a clear and unambiguous "No" is so important. People mix up or miss other social cues all the time, but if we as a society agree (and we should) that "No" or "Stop" is and always means "No" no matter the tone, body language or other social queues, then even the most socially inept can catch it.
Heck, I'm married and still have tonal / body language mix ups with my wife. You'd think after years of living together, we'd have these sorts of things down, but we don't. Now imagine a high stress individual interaction.
Robert White, I suspect your beef should be with your HR department (or equivalent). The guy in question sounds like a waste of space. But bureaucracy is as bureaucracy does. Either they handled this in a manner so inconsistent that it suggests they've exposed themselves to liability, or you never made a formal complaint and they're not scripted to care until you do.
@James Pollock
This is a no-win scenario. The question in the original post by Ken was:
"Why does talking about creepers and harassment make people so angry"…
To which he says:
"I confess: I still don't get it."
Yet you both seem to acknowledge the no-win aspect of this non-definition of undesirable male behavior. You both understand that the definition of creepy is solely at the discretion of the person making the accusation, yet you cannot understand why people might be upset at being slandered as "creepy" for what is effectively normal male behavior.
You can't hide behind the fact that most behavior defined as "creepy" is in fact unwanted. It doesn't matter, what matters is that the definition is allowed, and even encouraged to change whenever a woman feels uncomfortable. The situation remains that what is undesired behavior from males is allowed to change on the whim of the accuser, and that's enough to get anyone upset.
I disregarded the rest of your post due to time, and the fact that my point is already well made in what I've written here.
So, to jump into the tiger's den after the bloodbath has already started…
My husband and I are both part of the "geek" culture described above; him in the cyber world, I'm in the pop culture arena. The problems that Ken describes are so acute in our house that we cannot even discuss the issue any longer. My husband's opinion that the people described by Evelyn, et al (i.e., the, dare I type it, ADA Initiative-types) are causing more problems then they're solving. He feels that men in general, and more personally him specifically as part of the culture, are being lumped into a "you must be a misogynist rapist if you don't actively support our point-of-view" stereotype. All the fun is being taking out of his scene because men like him are afraid to speak in any tone other than a monotone voice about strictly technical things. My point is that not only are terrible things happening (still happening), but even worse is what happens when someone tries to report the bad behavior or even just call it out (examples are numerous, and recent, and have even gone into the realm of violent, physical assault). A very vocal "hey you, girly, show me your tits, make me a sandwich and shut the hell up" minority is making things unpleasant for everyone involved but no one wants to/knows how? to deal with them effectively. Cons are trying to deal with events like this, but the extreme reactions from all sides puts them in a very awkward and seemingly untenable position.
I'm the first to admit, it's hard to acknowledge but both of our views are valid, both of our points can be backed up by anecdotal evidence and personal experience. And since we're parents of an 11 year old girl who wants to accompany me to cons so we can cosplay and kicks butt at Skyrim and Assassins Creed and has already faced the "how good can you be, you're just a girl," mentality – it's become frighteningly personal. I've lived my life getting dismissed because my balls are on my chest and not between my legs, and I've learned to live with it. My husband has been known to frighten people just by his presence; he doesn't like like it, but meh, it happens. But I'll be damned if my kid's got to go through sh*t like this. To be a geek is to find the elegance in something overlooked by others; to be so excited and passionate about that one little slice of knowledge that we can hardly contain ourselves. This is why our communities exist – to share that delight we have in these things with other, like-minded individuals. I think we can do better in dealing with each other. I think, at some point, we're going to have to.
"you cannot understand why people might be upset at being slandered as "creepy" for what is effectively normal male behavior. "
I think you might have misunderstood the role I'm playing in this little drama. I'm the scapegoat.
Oh, good. I was concerned you might not be aware of that.
@James Pollock
"Do you mean "sexual" or "social" by "sexual-social"? How do you obtain this ten pieces of information without making a social overture?
(Counting up and collecting these ten pieces of information sounds really stalker-y to me. If you make a go of it, however, I can see cons passing out little business-card-size scorecards where the pursuers might jot down their findings.)."
Well, clearly, I meant "sexual-social" and not either merely sexual or social. (Note the use of the modifying hyphen and not the conjunctive slash.) Because, yes, good catch, you need to be social in order to follow the rule. And if you're being sexual, you're either committing assault or engaging in a consensual PDA.
The reason it's so easy to mock what I said, vis a vis your Creepy Stalker Bingo ™ game, speaks right to the point 95% of people are trying to make in these conversations. Even the most socially inept geek just isn't this stupid. Instead, they're just a PUA masquerading as a geek because they think they might get their Princess-Leia-gold-bikini or Kushiel's Dart fantasy to come true with an SF chick.
If you implement a strategy of having a plain non-pickup social conversation with someone first (no gender or sexuality bias necessary), you're going to have better luck and lower risk across the board. In fact, you might even try having multiple of those first, before heading into sexual pickup territory.
But I'm forgetting the strong taste of "blue balls" that has flavored this entire discussion, the horrific pressure of the pathologically inept geek who is so seethingly desperate to lose his virginity that all women must subordinate their bodily integrity to sacrificial compassion.
I think you're being a little unfair here. The distinction for a socially awkward geek between a sexual and a social encounter with the opposite sex is difficult for them to make. And while it may seem obvious, when you're young, full of hormones and your social model is with the other inmates (when a large chunk of our social development takes place, we're still in school most of the day) it's not nearly as clear. I have personal experience with this, and the revelation that you can have social, but non romantic interactions with females was something that I didn't get till late in the game, and I'm one of the lucky ones that got it before college (and even then it was a hard habit to break).
@Turb0Grl
He's not joking, they are being lumped in.
The problem here is presuming our daughters need protection from words, while telling them that they're strong and independent. That is a complete contradiction. Either you are strong, independent, "kick ass" and you can deal with someone throwing some trash talk your way, or you aren't. You can't tell girls that they can go out and do anything they want in life, and not meet opposition from which they need protection. That's a sheer lie no matter what sex you are. You wouldn't tell your son this, why do our daughters need protection from what is essentially normal male behavior if they can do anything the guys can do? Guys don't have a problem standing up for themselves when they have opposition to their goals. Why do the girls, if they are strong and capable of doing whatever they want require added attention/protection?
Mind you, I'm not talking about physical assault. If women are having a problem with physical assault, well then frankly they should go buy a pistol, or surrender their "you go, girl" card. No, I am talking about words. For some reason in gamer/geek spaces, females who consider themselves quite capable need protection from the words out of males. This is hilariously contradictory to female empowerment.
Christina: "But I'm forgetting the strong taste of "blue balls" that has flavored this entire discussion, the horrific pressure of the pathologically inept geek who is so seethingly desperate to lose his virginity that all women must subordinate their bodily integrity to sacrificial compassion."
This.
It is truly amazing how there appears to be some belief that males must have sex (with a woman) or something really, really bad will happen to them. (Not having sex is really really bad, right?)
I've said most of what I have to say about catering to the socially inept, and you're right, the socially inept are simply not anywhere near as stupid as to be part of the real issue.
Underrepresented in this discussion is the fact that women instinctively despise weak, passive men, thus many men in these communities may have been bullied, emotionally and verbally abused by girls growing up, not just when they "deserved" it for trying to make friends but merely for minding their own business.
A perfect example of this is the Evil Nice Guy meme that is a popular straw man for feminist blogs. I actually basically agree with the premise but I think it is instructive to take notice of the intensity of contempt and rage that passive guys illicit from women for, well, not doing much of anything, vs. the tolerance for and celebration of aggressive male behavior. Contrast the Evil Nice Guy with the number of posts and comments on Jezebel about how hot Don Draper is and I'm sure there is a sociology PhD in there somewhere.
I was a fat, nerdy kid and I got plenty of abuse for it, and not just from jocks. I remember getting beat up in front of the (middle aged lady) playground supervisors and them not giving a shit, no doubt because they saw weak, pathetic little me and would just as soon have seen me summarily executed to clean up the gene pool and prevent the worst-case scenario that I might somehow survive to adulthood, impregnate their daughter and pollute their own genetic legacy.
I got tons of crap, all day, every day, from girls I had class with, for just minding my own business. Insults, humiliation, harassment, on and on and on. In my dating life, because there are only so many women who like passive men, and they are seemingly all screwed up, I found myself mostly preyed upon by women who despised me but actively pursued and pretended to like me because they wanted someone who would put up with being put down and dehumanized. So I found myself cast in the role of the victimizer in a gender morality play, with endless lectures about feminism, rape culture, how evil men are, how evil I am for being a man, how I was victimizing them, what I thought, all the terrible sexist things I did (that I hadn't actually done). Just a big giant mind fuck that they accurately assumed they could get away with by picking on a weakling.
Supposing that many men in these communities have had similar experiences, the siege mentality is not that hard to comprehend. It is not so much "Oh no, those people I tried unsuccessfully to sexually harass have come for me, now I must behave!" but more like "Oh no, those people who proactively sought me out and preyed upon me during my entire childhood are back, and they are telling me how horrible I am again and that I need to change to accommodate them or GTFO of my place of refuge."
Jeremy–first of all, you managed to use a characterization of feminism (it does not posit that men, women, or other genders are all exactly identical), but then, in an amazingly loathsome display, blame women who suffer physical assault for being unarmed. This is why, in general, I can't so much as take your side of this argument seriously.
@TM
"The distinction for a socially awkward geek between a sexual and a social encounter with the opposite sex is difficult for them to make."
Oh, I understand that – because I was a socially inept nerd, and my partner was a socially inept nerd, all through high school and half of college (when we met each other and could be inept together). Yes, every encounter is sexually freighted, within the person who is feeling the sexual pressure (or maybe it's both of them). But when you're so terrified of the social encounter, the last thing you want to do is bring sexual talk into the conversation; it's going to be a plenty high enough difficulty level without that.
Thus back to the rule – keep it clean and casual, direct and dialoguing. At a con, this rule shouldn't be challenging to implement, because after all everyone there is self-selected to attend and you'll have lots to talk about, even if you stutter and low-talk and stare over their shoulder and twirl your braid or beard while you do.
@Aelfric
I think your imagination has run wild, I never mentioned feminism, nor spoke to the degree to which men and women are in fact equals.
No this is not true. More likely, you found as much as you could in my words as you could that is distasteful to you, and completely ignored my primary point. It's not my fault that you feel you need protection from my words. It is however, your fault for failing to understand my primary point, and instead focusing solely on side points that you disliked.
You couldn't have provided a clearer picture of all the points I've made in this thread. I posted a clear example of a contradiction in female empowerment. That is, women want all the exact same opportunities and exposure to the world as men get, but want protection from all that they dislike. Well you can't have it both ways, you either want exposure, opportunity and experiences, or you don't. You can't have just the positive experiences of being a free and responsible adult, you have to take the bad with the good.
But instead of seeing that point, you found small portions of my words that offended you, and then accused me of being loathsome. You might as well have just called me creepy based on whatever was upsetting you at the moment, it wouldn't be that different a behavior.
The socially-inept argument got trashed pretty thoroughly on Scalzi's site during a thread about creeper behavior at a gamer convention. Basically: if you're socially inept, don't expect that other people (ie, women) have an obligation to un-inept you. It's actually pretty presumptuous to expect them to.
I must admit I have the mental image of that scene from the Star Trek movie where an adolescent Spock loses his innocence by rubbing index fingers with some Vulcan woman. Maybe too many geeks saw that movie at a susceptible age.
Actually, Jeremy: you definitely could have phrased your point better (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because that's how I read it too) and lashing out at others doesn't really give me any incentive to read more of your stuff.
At this point any ignorance on why people get angry or bitter about discussions of "creepiness" is willing, and the contempt for a group they refuse to understand is showing from far too many who think they have something meaningful to add to the conversation.
Ken, for asking a rhetorical question you refuse the answer to, you've lost a measure of respect from me. This post was not a question, it was an excuse to attack people. *Shrug* You can do with that information what you will.
@Jeremy
"why do our daughters need protection from what is essentially normal male behavior if they can do anything the guys can do?"
Essentially normal male behavior??? What makes it that??? The fact that my 17yo daughter comes home from her MWF public transit commute and day in San Francisco, and every single time has a tale of harassment to tell?? Being followed and verbally harassed? Waking up on the train with her shirt pulled over, exposing one bra-covered breast? "Hey, baby [because I don't even know your name], let me have a piece of that ass!"??
Common behavior, maybe. Common like dirt is common.
Jeremy, simple question: do you believe that "[i]f women are having a problem with physical assault, well then frankly they should go buy a pistol, or surrender their 'you go, girl' card"?
If that's your idea of "normal male behavior", Jeremy, then you are seriously messed up.
Case in point: Jeremy talks about verbal harassment (read earlier in the quoted paragraph) and that topic is conflated with physical assault by both Aelfric and Christina. *Shakes head* This is why these discussions make some people so angry. The dishonesty there is staggering.
Seriously, you two, can you not make your point without lying about what somebody said? That doesn't bode well for your position. I don't even care to follow the argument any further because you've already demonstrated a willingness to misrepresent what the other party said to try to score points. Pathetic.
@Jeremy
" That is, women want all the exact same opportunities and exposure to the world as men get, but want protection from all that they dislike. Well you can't have it both ways, you either want exposure, opportunity and experiences, or you don't. You can't have just the positive experiences of being a free and responsible adult, you have to take the bad with the good."
Women don't require a man's generous permission for access to exposure, opportunity and experience. And if "the bad" for a man is that they get slapped down for harassment because they propositioned a woman without even knowing her name, and more and more people now find that offensive, and that man is less likely to access sex and needs to track down a PUA manual (which they might have trouble finding because women have economic power with Kickstarter to keep jackasses and pigs contained in corrals where they belong)… oh well.
But now we're back to offering a drink is "creepy" behavior. Certainly walking up to a random stranger and stammering, stutter and staring past them while you try to eck out a few meaningful words is considered creepy. And that's the problem with using "creepy" and "creeper" as our markers here and why we should define specific behaviors as "not OK". Don't get me wrong, it took me forever to figure out the "non sexual / romantic interactions are easier" bit and it's very good advice, but we need clear lines for what behaviors we generally interpret as sexual, because frankly offering a drink does not cross that line for me.
The opposite of this is that if you're going to freely congregate with the socially inept, it's presumptuous of you to expect them to suddenly change their ways without any prompting from you on that front. And you can't tell me that choosing to go to a geek convention is not choosing to congregate with the socially inept. Geeks are socially inept almost by definition, so any gathering of them will have socially inept people.
Orphan–Did Jeremy say, or did he not, that "[i]f women are having a problem with physical assault, well then frankly they should go buy a pistol, or surrender their 'you go, girl' card"? True, he did distinguish it from his earlier discussion of verbal harassment, but it seems to me I did not bring up the topic of physical assault apropos of nothing. I am not sure how I misrepresented that.
@TM
" because frankly offering a drink does not cross that line for me."
Under what circumstances? Walking up to a complete stranger and saying "hey babe, can I buy you a drink?"? Creepy, because you are clearly looking at them as an object and not as a person. If you were looking at them as a person, you would know their name and maybe even a few other things about them.
"Hey, babe, can I give you $5 to let me talk to you?" is what you're really saying if that's what you lead with.
Aelfric –
He did. I was referring to your previous statement about him blaming women for being unarmed; you took an offhand statement and made that the primary emphasis of your response; he introduced his views as a means of stating that his response -wasn't- addressing that situation. (He made the derailing possible with an unwise introduction of an irrelevant opinion, you made it complete by taking that opinion in its least charitable interpretation and making that the focus of your response.)
@Jeremy: "You wouldn't tell your son this, why do our daughters need protection from what is essentially normal male behavior if they can do anything the guys can do?"
Because the ROE (Rules Of Engagement) in a physical altercation are different between men and women.
A male attacking a woman will assume he has the upper hand.
A male attacking a woman is far less likely to back off due to a bluff, displayed weapon, whatever.
A male attacking a woman who is capable of hurting him, is more likely to double-down than back off when hurt, unless she can make it a major injury.
Guys treat a fight with another guy as a semi-sport. They treat a fight with a woman as a threat to their identity.
In MANY ways, it's similar to how guys will treat a guy who is significantly smaller then the average. He'll almost never be able to "bluff out" and they're not going to be pulling punches.
But this is the twister – any woman no matter her size or physical shape will be treated this way.
I'm quite familiar with that treatment, it's what I got when I was the 2nd shortest kid in all my classes. No matter how many times I bloodied their noses, they came back.
Until I crossed 6'2 and a 170lbs and kept going and the DAMNDEST thing happened.
People stopped wanting to get in fights with me. They actively avoided giving me offense. (Which yes, was a damned good idea, since I was used to taking on people twice my size)
For Women? It NEVER stops.
I've seen a woman who is in my size range have a guy start physically manhandling her. She was one of my sparring friends, and she kicked his ass, but I'll lay you dollars for donuts that he NEVER would have tried that with a guy of the same size and build as hers.
How do you not know this? Enough that you blithely say "Well, then get a gun".
Orphan: Aelfric is right; we responded to Jeremy's comment about buying a pistol. We did not lie.
TM: "The opposite of this is that if you're going to freely congregate with the socially inept, it's presumptuous of you to expect them to suddenly change their ways without any prompting from you on that front."
To hell with that noise. If I go to a convention or a conference, I'm there for the topic or for other reasons of my own. To educate the socially inept is not my or any other person's responsibility. If the kind of social interaction most people pick up with minimal effort throughout life is too much for them to handle, maybe they'd better keep themselves out of the way.
Again, what non creepy method do you suggest for obtaining these bits of information before initiating social contact at a con? Do you seriously think that all offers of a drink are sexual in nature? Also, don't you think it's a bit unfair to assume the mental state of a person you also know nothing about?
DRS –
I didn't said it was a lie, I said it was dishonest. The argument was intended to score points against Jeremy, not honestly address what he said, which is apparent from the moment you start arguing with an aside which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, and doubled down when the argument made is only tenable with an uncharitable interpretation of his statements.
When he called Aelfric on it, Aelfric doubled down.
TM: you don't just walk up to a complete stranger and ask them a personal question (or make a personal statement like that). You could say something about the convention or conference or event that you're both attending – you know, something neutral, based on a possible mutual interest. I can't believe you need this explained to you.
Not to mention: ever heard of a date-rape drug? Look it up in Wikipedia.
And seriously: "can I buy you a drink?" Didn't that line go out with disco?
Orphan: these are your words: "Seriously, you two, can you not make your point without lying about what somebody said? "
Now you stop lying.
Ken, any chance of an update on the Prenda situation? The Prenda-ites have all filed papers expressing their complete shock and utter dismay that they have not been served with papers properly, and therefore Morgan Pietz is the fraudster who must be sanctioned. I have a feeling this is BS but I can't figure out why.
DRS/Aelfric – See: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Arguments_as_soldiers
Jeremy didn't defend the argument; he made clear it was irrelevant. Quit attacking it. (Also, DRS, I didn't accuse you of dishonesty, because I think you realized Jeremy made a mistake in putting an irrelevant point forward. It was the continuing-to-attack-it part that annoyed me there.)
Orphan–I confess I did shift some emphasis there, as that opinion struck me as incredibly noteworthy. But, I still don't think I misrepresented what he said. I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea that he derailed his own post, but if I spent six pages talking about the Rule Against Perpetuities, and ended my memo with "Also, all white people are racist," something tells me legal niceties will not be the takeaway.
DRS –
I did say that, yes. My mistake.
Also, jesus christ on a candycane, what happened in this comments section? Did the entire population of Tumblr turn out to prove Ken right?
Of course it isn't your responsibility, and it's not the socially inept's responsibility to alter their (legal, let's be clear, violations of the laws are another matter) behavior to suit your cultural norms. IOW change begins with You, and if you silently suffer the social ineptitudes of the people you congregate with, then it won't change. So yes, you and obstinately and correctly assert you have no responsibility to define the social norms and the socially inept should read your mind. Of course you're also free to wish into a bucket, but it fills up faster if you pee.
Walking up to a complete stranger and saying "hey babe, can I buy you a drink?"? Creepy, because you are clearly looking at them as an object and not as a person.
If anyone was wondering why men get so defensive when it comes to this topic, this comment is a perfect example of what a big part of the problem is.
Offering to buy someone a drink, in a social setting, before getting to know them, makes one a creep?!?!?!
"Can I buy you a drink" is one of the oldest and most common ice breakers in the history of courting — an easy and comfortable way to basically say "Id like to get to know you more", and now it is being turned into something abhorrent because it's objectifying or some such nonsense. It's definitely less awkward than just randomly approaching someone, introducing yourself and asking questions about someone. Offering to buy a drink gives the person the chance to say "No Thanks" and that tells me right away to move along, that this person isn't interested in socializing with me. It's probably the least offensive and most cliche/unmemorable approach to try and meet someone.
Every woman I have ever known has not found this offensive. If the don't want to interact with he guy they say "no thanks". (Or sometimes take the free drink and walk away or find a reason to excuse themselves). In fact many of my female friends, when they were in their 20's, when going to the bar scene would brag about how little they actually had to spend on drinks because guys are always offering to buy them. None of them were creeped out by it. And if they found that person attractive they would socialize with them, if not, they would politley duck out with said drink.
I'm sorry, if offering to buy someone a drink makes one a creep in your opinion, then your opinion is worth what we paid for it.
Jeremy wrote:
Criminy. NO.
Here's what we're saying: "Don't be a creepy jerk. And hey, it sure is better when people aren't creepy jerks. But on those occasions when people are creepy jerks, it's good for the target of the creepy jerkness to have some support, both to back them up and to teach the creepy jerk how to be better."
Because EVERYONE, male or female, no matter how strong and independent, could use a little help now and then.
And as to your other comment:
Christ, what an asshole.
@ Christina
"I think a very clear and understandable standard of acceptable behavior, one that can cover 100% of situations, even if 2% of people don't care much about such etiquette, would be the one where you don't make a sexual-social overture without having gained directly from the individual their name and at least ten pieces of information about them"
Except this does not protect against the charge of creepiness in the least. Picture a large unattractive male picking his belly button and wheezing between trying to get ten pieces of information from a girl. If you like, that could be a standard for harassment, but it's not currently the standard (which is highly subjective). If you want to campaign to get that done, be my guest.
Creepiness is not about what is said or done. It is completely context, timing, and interpersonal dynamics. As I said earlier, we know it when we see it (at least some of us do).
I thought about it, what about invading personal space unasked? Trams and the subway. Unwanted touching? There's exceptions, but it's not bad. But all of it cannot eliminate or even scratch "creepy". You can be creepy from another room. You can be creepy by sound alone. And it remains totally subjective.
Which is why I propose we don't worry so much about "creepy". Focus on physical contact and verbal harassment, properly defined would bring better dividends in my opinion. People will be creepy, and there's not much way to get rid of it without ostracizing or jailing a lot of people who did nothing wrong.
Unless of course the goal is not to harmonize relations between the sexes, but to stoke the genderwarz and flame the intarbutts, in which case, reporting for duty.
I'm sorry, what's so personal about "would you like to get a coffee?" Seriously this is why geeks with difficulties with non verbal queues have such a hard time with this, because to most geeks the question "Would you like a drink" is a literal question, and holds minimal alterior motives (other than they find you interesting in some way and are looking to start a social interaction). But you seem to ascribe much more than is intended to the statement. Seriously, how is coffee not the very definition of a neutral possibly mutual interest?
Also yes, I have heard of date rape drugs. Question: Do you suppose it is unhealthy to have a social model of the world that assumes every person you interact with is a potential rapist until proven otherwise?
Question 2: Which do you suppose is more irrational? My belief that an offer of a drink is a neutral and natural way of starting a social engagement in a setting of strangers or your belief that a person doing so is propositioning you for sex, considers you nothing more than an object, and may be trying to drug you.
If you wonder why people get angry in these discussions its because you lump normal casual social interactions in with real and horrible crimes.
TM: "… it's not the socially inept's responsibility to alter their (legal, let's be clear, violations of the laws are another matter) behavior to suit your cultural norms."
It is if they want to get to know me.
TM: You do not accept a beverage from a total stranger BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE PUT SOMETHING IN IT. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, are you really this thick??????
So, for those of you wondering what creeper behaviour is: go back up through these comments and you will find wonderful examples.
If someone looks at you and says "Hey! You stepped on my foot!" and you want to say "That wasn't your foot, I stepped on part of your shoe."
– You might be a creeper.
It's really not that hard to identify true "creeper" behaviour.
and WHILE I have a lot of sympathy for the socially maladroit, being of that crowd in my own way. I expect them to learn at LEAST the basics, and this…bullshit has been going on for 20+ years.
Science Fiction Fandom was not started as a sanitarium for the emotionally shell shocked. Young pre-teen girls who love science fiction and want to cosplay should not have to "put up" with a 40 year old making "saucy" (read: inappropriately sexual) comments to her because he's "maladjusted".
You respect other people's personal boundaries or you are gone. These rules are easier than the most basic RPG or card game. Ken has posted links to several guides. The Con I attend posts a quick basic set of rules like this.
If you can't follow these basic rules, then you need to be gone. Your social ineptness does not give you the right to improper behaviour that affects others. I suspect that for 99% of the geeks, nerds, dorks, bookworms, Chtuhlu bless us everyone of us, this not going to be a problem.
In KINDNESS, people in fandom try to correct what they see as "correctible" behaviour, but again, if you cannot or will not correct, then you have no business forcing your issues on others. Which, by coincidence, is exactly the behaviour we're talking about.
Go Start InepCon and grope each other.
And how do they get to know your social norms (and subsequently you) if you don't tell them? Or are you presuming that other people will educate them for you, in which case, why is it those people's responsibility to educate, but not yours?
Don't be a creepy jerk. And hey, it sure is better when people aren't creepy jerks.
And how do we define what is "creepy jerk" behavior??? It sounds like the standard for some people is "I know it when I see and I will let you know after the fact".
I personally find that a very unreasonable standard. And that seems to be crux of the problem. The 'grey area' is quite a big area. It's easy when talk about the extremes and the obvious (like unwanted physical contact), but when someone is seriously saying that asking "Can I buy you a drink?" as an ice-breaker/intro in a social setting is "creepy jerk" behavior, there is going to be a lot of emotional responses by both sides of the issue.
Sorry, when did we go from buying someone a drink to handing them a drink already made? And again with the assumption that every person you encounter is a rapist in waiting. Also, I'm not thick and I will thank you to not cast aspirations on someone you don't know. Just because you and I do not agree on something doesn't make either one of us stupid and frankly the fact that you behave that way is offensive.
TM: okay that answers that. You really are that thick.
TM: You do not accept a beverage from a total stranger BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE PUT SOMETHING IN IT. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, are you really this thick??????
Except that people accept drinks all the time at bars and coffehouses and the overwhelming majority dont get raped or drugged. And offering to buy someone a drink is not the same as offering some homemade wine out of the flask in my pocket. You can tell the waitress or bartender or barista what you want, they will bring it to you and I will pay for it.
For people who don't have the spare time to be harassed by Ken criticizing their behavior (which apparently involves groping strangers), they sure take a lot of time out of their busy schedules to
1) come read Ken's blog posts criticizing their gropaciousness
2) comment angrily
3) come back to read Ken's blog posts wondering why his post about Comic-con gropers got so many more angry responses than posts about racism
4) comment angrily again that Ken needs to stop harassing them and
5) schedule a partial lobotomy in order to reconcile the logic of defining Ken's blogging as "harassment" and unwanted groping as "not harassment."
My first attempt at blockquoting here, apologies if it goes horribly awry.
I can't believe I read the whole thing. Ken, next time buy yourself an ice cream cone. It might make you happier than this easy-but-really-kind-of-dirty bump to your traffic stats.
I don't think we're going to debate our way to a reasoned resolution. The problem, such as it is, doesn't originate between the ears. This thread has convinced me of nothing except that civic groups should start encouraging prostitution. (Hat tip: Andrew Roth) These boys need to get laid, and society needs that to happen in a consensual manner.
@different Jess: I say Ken should buy us all ice cream cones. We've been arguing here in his living room for two days — The least he could do is feed us. :-)
I'll have a mint chocolate chip. Single scoop is fine.
400 comments? I hadn't realized this was so contentious a topic. People can be idiots and judge (discriminate against) people on the basis of race, gender, and orientation, nationality, etc. And, ironically, this is one of very few proclivities that crosses all boundaries- white people do it, African and African American people do it, Asians do it, Hispanic people do it; Americans, French, Chinese, Russians, Egyptians, South Africans, Israelis, all do it. Men and women, gay people and straight people, all do it.
We can argue about what cases cross what boundaries, and if a particular case is discrimination or not, but at least it should be accepted that discrimination is a perfectly natural human trait- one that we have to overcome.
James Pollack, she and I make judgements based on the information in front of us, just like every other human being on the planet. But congratulations on spelling my name right: it makes my point so clear about paying an inordinate amount of attention to irrelevant details (unless you are claiming that there is a James-Pollock-with-a-similar-spelling in this conversation. Which you're not, you're just changing the subject again, because it makes you uncomfortable to address the actual issues.)
I love this analogy, but it leaves some parts out:
You deliberately ignore the forty or fifty other guys you've seen, both today and on numerous other occasions, go up to women and say "Purple Elephants," only to be greeted with shock, horror, scorn, disgust, disbelief, slaps, and on one occasion, the use of a panic button to call her secret service detail. You walk up and with a huge grin on your face, say "Purple Elephants," only to be greeted by a blank stare. As the woman turns around to leave, you mutter "What a frigid bitch," and wonder why she turns around to stare daggers at you.
Chuck Norris, walking by arm in arm with another young woman, tips his hat to you and says, "Some people got it, some people don't."
John Beatty, since you continue to misspell his name after being specifically warned of it, you are an asshole. Probably less of an asshole than someone who blames victims of rape, but you're on the spectrum.
I'm just because I noticed there was a lawn trampling party, and I ended up reading the whole thread.
If I ever need another reminder that human beings are glorified chimpanzees, I'll be sure to return to the comment section on this thread. Watching people resort to victim blaming and defensive marginalization who, in other threads, are usually thoughtful, is simultaneously disappointing and amazing.
Ken, the freaks are even more mainstream than you thought. Thank you for creating the perfect illustration to your point in the comment section, whether you intended to or not. If you did, then bravo.
@TM
'Again, what non creepy method do you suggest for obtaining these bits of information before initiating social contact at a con? Do you seriously think that all offers of a drink are sexual in nature? Also, don't you think it's a bit unfair to assume the mental state of a person you also know nothing about?"
See my previous entry outlining a perfectly rational and easily followed pickup guide for the socially inept. Of course, it's not BEFORE initiating a social contact. It's how you initiate a social contact, at a con or anywhere. "Hello, my name is XYZ. [Offer hand for a handshake, possibly.] Isn't this a terrific conference, I'm having such a great time. What's your name? [even if person is wearing a badge.]"
I think just about all unsolicited offers of a drink from an anonymous stranger who doesn't know your name that aren't done from a table of 500 cups of the same beverage (like at a footrace?) are meant as an overture to social intercourse. It doesn't *have* to be a sexual pickup, but if the person couldn't be bothered to initiate the socialization with introductions, chances are quite high that it is.
And no, I don't think it's unfair. I think that's what social cues are all about.
I see there are a lot of follow ups on the "hey babe, can I buy you a drink". Is it common? Sure it is. So are wolf whistles on the street. Y'all want to know why it might be seen as creepy, and I explained. Sorry you didn't like the answer.
@ChicagoTom
""Can I buy you a drink" is one of the oldest and most common ice breakers in the history of courting — an easy and comfortable way to basically say "Id like to get to know you more""
Key word being MORE. In other words, I already know you a little bit. Y'all are ignoring the quite conscious inclusion of the word "babe" and my repeated statement of this being the *first* thing a person says to initiate social intercourse. There will certainly be circumstances where doing so will be completely inoffensive, and in fact expected.
@Tarrou
"Except this does not protect against the charge of creepiness in the least. Picture a large unattractive male picking his belly button and wheezing between trying to get ten pieces of information from a girl. If you like, that could be a standard for harassment, but it's not currently the standard (which is highly subjective). If you want to campaign to get that done, be my guest. "
I never said that you should persist obstinately until you've gotten the ten pieces of information. The other person can always leave the dialogue, in which case you fell short. If you can manage to sustain a social dialogue with a person until you've learned ten significant things about them and they about you, you've probably amassed enough verbal and sub-verbal cues to be able to make smarter decisions in the mating dance.
Ten things in each direction was an arbitrary threshold – the really socially inept (like myself and my partner when we were meeting) should really aim for a much higher duration of dialogue and collection of information, because the socially inept need a much larger dataset in order to make good decisions about socialization.
"I don't think we're going to debate our way to a reasoned resolution."
No, that would require people who want a reasoned resolution, and are looking for one. That is not what is at work here.
It is clear that the present circumstance is not suitable for a wide range of people; for a wide range of reasons. The path to a reasoned resolution would start by asking all participants "What change do you want and what will you concede in order to achieve it" … that's the opening question of any negotiation. When laid out like this, how many people are in the position "I want this and this and this, and I'm not willing to concede anything to get it"…
"it makes you uncomfortable to address the actual issues"
Yes, Mr. Beaty, THAT'S why I posted so many messages… I wanted to be uncomfortable.
Hey, while we're talking about irrelevant details, how do you spell "judgment"?
""Hello, my name is XYZ. [Offer hand for a handshake, possibly.] Isn't this a terrific conference, I'm having such a great time. What's your name? [even if person is wearing a badge.]""
Working off a script? Creepy.
"I think just about all unsolicited offers of a drink from an anonymous stranger who doesn't know your name that aren't done from a table of 500 cups of the same beverage (like at a footrace?) are meant as an overture to social intercourse"
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Too sexual?
Key word being MORE. In other words, I already know you a little bit. Y'all are ignoring the quite conscious inclusion of the word "babe" and my repeated statement of this being the *first* thing a person says to initiate social intercourse. There will certainly be circumstances where doing so will be completely inoffensive, and in fact expected.
The 'More' shouldn't have been there. My apologies. Offering to buy someone a drink as the first thing I say to them in a social situation indicates my desire to get to know them and to pay for a beverage (so that at least if my company sucks, they get a free drink out of the deal so it isn't a total waste of their time) is not inherently or objective creepy, off putting, inappropriate etc.
Sorry though, the rest of your comment still doesn't really make anything clearer. Obviously the "Hey babe" bit is off-putting and I believe can be inappropriate, but that has nothing to do with offering to buy a drink. If I were to say "Hey Babe, my name is Tom" and I offered my hand to shake would that still be creepy?? Probably…most women don't like being called "babe" by a stranger. (although again…not everyone finds "babe" or "honey" or "sweetie" or other terms of endearment off putting — it usually doesnt bother them when the person saying it someone who they are attracted to)
The problem with your whole line of thought is that…no one but you knows when you consider it appropriate and in what context it is and isn't approrpriate. That may be your standard, but that isn't by any stretch of the imagination an objective or logical standard.
So I will say it again….offering to buy you drink as my first interaction with you, rather then say "Hi My name is Tom" and try and shake your hand…in any social setting..is not inherently/objectively/prima facie "creepy". And if you think it is, maybe the problem lies with you and your beliefs, not me. People have been approached
You seriously walk up to women and call them "Babe"? With an outdated pick-up line? Jeez.
@different Jess:
Thanks for the support, and well said.
This is a situation in which the perfect is the enemy of the good. Honestly, the Aspie I described above is worse than I indicated. Do a WordPress search for "Temple Clinger," and you'll see what I mean. As much as the women around him might like him to be continent and demure until he enters into a serious relationship or marriage (with some other unlucky woman, of course), that ain't happening. It certainly isn't happening until he starts getting laid and learning how to relate to women. Unless he can tone down the creepiness, he won't have a prayer of having a dating life with amateur girls. Only if he starts seeing hookers will he become sexually satiated enough to stop fantasizing about every cute chick in sight as a sexual prospect and letting that attitude ruin his relationships with women. It's the single best thing he can do if he wants to find a girlfriend.
The opposition to guys like the Temple Clinger hiring prostitutes gets even weirder than that. A lot of it comes from people who don't see anything particularly objectionable about having unprotected sex with casual acquaintances, or even strangers, in a state of blackout intoxication. At least they feel that way about people who meet their standards for handsomeness and sociability; maybe not so much about dweebs and insecure BBWs. The reasoning, although rarely articulated, is that with enough liquor one can obliterate mens rea and be absolved of responsibility, whereas whores, being sober, deliberate, and more or less judicious in their approach to sex, are louche and crass. This is exacerbated by the vicarious ickiness that whores cause some people (probably more so women than men) by having sex with teh creepiez. The reasoning here is quite stupid, but quite popular.
In truth, some of the most decorous, even circumspect, sex writing I've read has been by sex workers. By contrast, chronically bottled-up guys who are as celibate as rural Greek monks disseminate some of the filthiest, and most misanthropic, smut imaginable. Natural family planning zealots are also really smutty, even though they make a big deal about being holy in their sex talk because it's all about chastity and the "marriage act." I'm Catholic, and I used to get guilt-tripped by the NFP nutters, especially when I was overly involved with the Newman Club. These days, I just discreetly smirk and wait for the adults to reclaim the pulpit. If prostitution was good enough for St. Augustine, it's definitely good enough for me.
@James Pollock
"Working off a script? Creepy."
That was funny – seriously :-) But what are habits and social mores but a script? The whole point of being socially inept or boorish or creepy is that you simply don't understand the script as either the individual you approached or an even larger segment of society understand it.
As for the cigar, I didn't say sexual – I said social. Someone above said the drink question is code for "I want to get to know you better" or "I want to spend more time with you". But the assumption with both of those statements, since they involve the comparative, is that the denominator is non-zero: I already know you a little bit, I've already spent a little bit of time with you.
BTW, I totally concede that there are scenarios and people where any and all verbally harassing sentences would be completely non-offensive. (I sassily compliment my partner's body all the time and he's never gotten mad at me for it.) My overall point has been, if you don't know the person you're getting ready to lob one at, and the environment doesn't offer clarity, it would be better to lean to the side of respect than to barge in with a overture that could be a Purple Elephant.
Sure that could work too. Except, outside of proscribed circumstances, it's creepy to offer physical contact (a hand shake) before you know someone. And I generally find generic small talk ("Isn't this a terrific conference") to be painfully awkward. Of course, that's sort of my point here, that this stuff is hard, and it's made harder by the fact that one person's innocuous question (especially in the case of a socially awkward geek speaking literally) is another persons sexual proposition (or if you're DRS, attempted rape).
I am consciously ignoring it because it's a way of phrasing the question that implies specific things about the asker, intentionally to make them appear rude and creepy. What if instead of opening with "Hey babe" they opened with "Excuse me Miss", or even simply (and more likely for a socially inept geek) "Um… hi"
It seems pretty clear that your true objection is not the offer of a drink, but being called "babe" at the start of the interaction. That's a specific action distinct from the offer of the drink, and we agree that it's in appropriate. That doesn't make all or even most offers of a drink a sexual advance.
"In other words, I already know you a little bit."
Right. So folks at a con are only allowed to interact with other people they already know, on pain of forcible ejection from the event and probable contact with the police, in Christina-world.
I mean, I've seen this sort of transition happening, which is the main reason I don't go to cons much anymore (I can spend time with my existing friends _without_ having to buy plane tickets and a hotel room and a con membership)…but it never occurred to me that there was anybody out there who actually thought it was a desirable trend. Good to know.
I'm pretty sure there aren't any cons out there where merely approaching to talk to someone you don't already know is an ejection offense, but give it time, and I'm sure some will emerge.
Maybe we should just hand out badge ribbons…"yes, I'm interested in making new friends" or "no, stay away or I'll file a complaint". Used to be, the membership badge was a reliable-enough indicator of the former condition, and the exceptions were willing to settle for a polite (or not) brush-off. Those were good times. Now, it sounds like it's basically just the bar scene, but with stranger costumes.
(Never offered to buy a woman a drink myself, of course…consuite beer and coca-cola are free, after all. Or at least, they were when I still went to cons.)
@ChicagoTom
"The problem with your whole line of thought is that…no one but you knows when you consider it appropriate and in what context it is and isn't approrpriate. That may be your standard, but that isn't by any stretch of the imagination an objective or logical standard."
Actually, that exactly makes my point. If you are a total stranger to the person, and they to you, then a neutral and respectful approach from you is the safest. Does it convey your message and intentions as succinctly or as quickly? Perhaps not. I can appreciate that "Can I buy you a drink?" is not a very large step away from neutral and respectful, and does in fact have a pretty standard connotation in American social intercourse; I still don't understand why anyone meeting a stranger wouldn't introduce themselves first. (Really crappy name?)
TM: Let me give you a few slightly (but not much) exaggerated examples of creepiness.
(a) Man says "Want to have some coffee at my place?" to a woman who is not appreciative to that. Creepy. Results in a denial and physical avoidance.
(b) Man says "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" to a woman who is appreciative to that. Not creepy. They go to a room and have a great night.
There is a clear difference between the examples. Before making an advance, you have to know if it will be accepted. It is not a random die roll, factors such as nonverbal cues and environment show how it will be; and your attractiveness and your tone/microgestures will affect both the success rate and the creepiness of a failed attempt.
If you make unaccepted advances (even if you thought that the advance would be welcome), then it is creepy, and it's your fault. The expected success chance matters – "Out of your league" or "What the heck was he thinking" failed attempts are significantly more creepy than "sorry, not today" or "I want you but I'm commited to someone else" results. If you couldn't 'read' the situation – your fault, there is no such thing an "Assocation of womenkin" with some kind of duty to educate you beforehand. If you thought you read the situation but were wrong – your fault, learn from it or be perceived as a creep. If you're not sure -well, step back and go home, or wait for extra hints, or choose other potential mates, or try your luck knowing that being wrong will be your fault and may be considered creepy.
See Socially Awkward. Come on, you said yourself you were (are?) you've never started a statement / conversation in the middle or tripped up over yourself because of the stress of the situation? Most of these guys had a hard enough time getting the words out of their mouth in order, they can be forgiven for forgetting to start with names.
@TM
"I am consciously ignoring it because it's a way of phrasing the question that implies specific things about the asker, intentionally to make them appear rude and creepy. What if instead of opening with "Hey babe" they opened with "Excuse me Miss", or even simply (and more likely for a socially inept geek) "Um… hi"
It seems pretty clear that your true objection is not the offer of a drink, but being called "babe" at the start of the interaction. That's a specific action distinct from the offer of the drink, and we agree that it's in appropriate. That doesn't make all or even most offers of a drink a sexual advance."
Actually, I'm not using "babe" to emphasize creepyness, I'm using it to emphasize lack of knowledge of the person's name. But I can appreciate that it could be read that way and I'll stop that.
@lelnet
"Right. So folks at a con are only allowed to interact with other people they already know, on pain of forcible ejection from the event and probable contact with the police, in Christina-world."
Sure. That's exactly what I've been saying. No one's ever allowed to get to know anyone without a third-party introduction accompanied by notarized identity documents certifying degree and duration of relationship. Unless they're RFID'd, that'd be easier of course.
As opposed to what I've actually been saying, which is nothing more difficult than "introduce yourself first".
(OK, sorry, my last comment was definitely mistargeted. Emotions are running high all 'round. I apologize for my part of that.)
To answer Ken's question in the actual post: we demonstrably are living, right now, in a world where some people are groping nonconsenting strangers in public, and where other people's first reaction to a casual offer to buy a drink and have a conversation is "OMG you're trying to drug and rape me!". Does it _really_ surprise you that emotions run high, in such a world?
…and I'm also sorry that I didn't finish writing that apology sooner. Seriously…I mistook you for someone else.
"My overall point has been, if you don't know the person you're getting ready to lob one at, and the environment doesn't offer clarity, it would be better to lean to the side of respect"
No argument there. Respect (both ways) is essential in any kind of relationship going forward.
I know it's heretical, but it is something lacking when the womenfolk are discussing the expansive form of "creepy jerks" (NOT the edge of the group that's handling people in objectively inappropriate ways, for which I have no sympathy, but the other edge, the guys whose only offense is ineptitude in execution.) If you want to receive respect, you have to be willing to give it as well.
Anyway, the problem is that you're trying to offer a program or script that can/should be used in all first-meeting situations. It's just as ineffective when you set out the script as when the PUA dudes do. It will continue being ineffective as long as women insist on being independent, disparate beings.
@TM
I'm 43 now, and my socially inept days are behind me, thank the FSM. Mostly that's because I lucked out stumbling onto a geeky partner at a reasonably young age and so a lot of the pressure disappeared. Part of these comments (waaaaaaay back) was about "what's a socially awkward person to do?" Introducing yourself is a good rule of thumb. After all, nerds and geeks have certain characteristics, and liking operational clarity is almost universally one of them. So there's a script – don't think theatrical, think Java.
Actually, James, you've done your level best to avoid the actual issue at hand (why are so many people up in arms to an extreme in one subject area), and worked very hard to make it clear that you are not willing to lokkat any view point but your own, even when people actually take time to answer the questions you say you want answered.
But, sure, talk about my typing. It's so relevant.
Well, Ken has made his point…Prenda, the Sound of One Shoe dropping, a month old, has around 5-600 posts….and this post will be #408, after all of two days!!!
Everybody has some experience, something to say…..
Whenever a discussion about sexual harassment devolves into persnickety rules-lawyering about what precisely constitutes harassment and what doesn't, I assume there are is at least one harasser involved in the conversation, looking for lines against which he can push.
I did not unintentionally derail my own previous comment. I knew clearly what the likely response to that one sentence would be. Again, I see that my point is clearly made by others trying to sort things out. Somehow it is my responsibility to protect others from words. It's hilarious, really. I want women to be just as free and adult as anyone, but it is just not even remotely adult behavior to get so upset by a single sentence then twist the meaning entirely to your own distasteful conclusion, and then accuse the male speaking them of being a jerk.
-My primary point was ignored.
-My "offensive" sentence was all that was remembered.
-"Creepy" remains an undefined word of slander used against men when women cannot deal with offensive speech and non-threatening behavior.
And I should accept being judged as creepy by the likes of this? Why is it any wonder there's so much animosity in these discussions?
@sorrykb • Jul 2, 2013 @1:44 pm
Didn't you just demonstrate exactly what I said? A "creepy jerk" used words to make someone else feel uncomfortable, and the socially adult, free and independent woman needs support to, what? confirm for them that someone made them feel uncomfortable and tell the "creepy jerk" to stop making her feel uncomfortable? This is a worthwhile use of time?
You have a right to free speech.
You have no right to not be offended.
By suggesting that females arm themselves to protect themselves from assault, I am an asshole? I don't even know where to begin. Would it be different if I said to a boy who was getting picked on, go lift weights, and go learn how to fight?
Your safety is always at least partly your responsibility. Even the USSC agrees with this as they've clearly stated that police have no legal obligation/liability to protect anyone. I should stop here as this is clearly OT.
@James Pollock
"Anyway, the problem is that you're trying to offer a program or script that can/should be used in all first-meeting situations. It's just as ineffective when you set out the script as when the PUA dudes do. It will continue being ineffective as long as women insist on being independent, disparate beings."
Not necessarily all – what if you're in the anonymous sex room at the con? – just most. And I do think calling it a script is really a stretch – one line (name exchange) followed by direction to improvise an appropriate dialogue?
I've raised three kids – and by definition, kids are socially inept until they learn the appropriate social skills. This is how you go about it: modeling good behavior, talking about good and bad behavior, enforcing consequences on bad behavior. Is it more challenging for a socially awkward adult to learn those skills? Sure, because habits and traits are more deeply ingrained, but I think the general technique would be the same. Roll over, crawl, walk, run, bike, drive…
Hmm now that's interesting considering I didn't see that interpretation at all, and please take the following for what it is, an honest attempt at understanding and not a "gotcha" attack.
So in the social context you wre raised in, is the most offensive part of your proposed interaction the fact that a drink (presumably a deeper social interaction) was offered before names were exchanged? Because in the context I was brought up in, the use of "babe" as a reference to someone you're not romantically involved in to be the more offensive part.
It's amazing and scary how much one word can change the entire social dynamic. As another example, my wife was born and raised southern. In her society, especially in customer service, everyone is "honey" or "sweetie" or "darling" or "sugar". We moved one state north in that habit was painfully broken because frequently when she would use it, she would be quite literally screamed at for having the audacity to refer to someone as "sweetie".
I say it again, social dynamics are hard.
"James, you've done your level best to avoid the actual issue at hand"
By offering multiple answers to it? Why don't you just admit you haven't read what I've written and be done with it? I mean, it took you only three tries to not misspell my name which appears atop EVERY ONE of my comments.
"worked very hard to make it clear that you are not willing to lokkat any view point but your own"
Really, see above. I'm demonstrably engaging other people's ideas in my comments.
" even when people actually take time to answer the questions you say you want answered."
Pop quiz. What question or questions did I say I want answered? (I know, you'd have to actually READ what I write to deal with this, so I eagerly await your evasion.)
The fact that you use "victim" in quotes makes it clear that is you've already made up your mind that certain behavior isn't harassment. My question is, how do you know this? Are you some sort of Casanova who has had > 50% luck with "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" Are you a serial flasher who more often than not gets a response of "Not interested, but I'm flattered all the same"? Or is your opinion based on other information, such as female friends, male friends, or perhaps even your own ability to at least try to put yourself in a woman's shoes and say, "If I were a woman, I think this behavior would seriously offend me… but this other behavior wouldn't bother me at all"?
I know that walking up to a woman I don't know and groping her is harassment. I think even you would agree with me on that point. I've known this as long as I can remember, long before my first sexual harassment seminar. Maybe it was the John Wayne movies, or maybe because I had a dad who was married to my mom and was around to teach me not to be an asshole. What I can say with a fair amount of certainty is that I learned this from sources of information other than "women I have groped providing me with constructive feedback." Because I don't grope strangers, and I try to avoid people who do.
Just who are you arguing for exactly? You seem to be arguing on behalf of the down-trodden, well-intentioned geek, haplessly offending women because he doesn't know any better. At this point, I could see where you were coming from, and even emphasize with the poor guy. The thing is, that geek learns pretty quickly because he invariably runs into one of the many women willing to give him "constructive negative feedback."
The guys (and some women, too) who comprise the vast majority of harassers, and of the problem, don't have a problem with "not knowing 'which shit will not fly.'" They have all the information they need. They are the ones who get the negative feedback, maybe not 100% of the time, but often enough that they find the need to complain about the bitches being overly sensitive, the effete homosexuals like Ken who enable them, and the tyrannical feminazi security guard for not using an organic, fair trade pepper spray.
Many posters have pointed out that they do give negative feedback, at which point the overarching theme of your posts seems to become "good for you, but women culture at large is at fault. Even if some women give negative responses, if not enough of them do, then it's not these guys' faults that they can't get it through their thick heads."
I disagree, strongly. If you're doing something to people, even if the majority simply ignore you and walk away faster, and at least a few of them tell you things like, "Stop, don't do that" or "Stop following me, creep" or "Section 19(a) of the State Penal Code characterizes what you're doing as sexual battery," then that should be a hint that you should reexamine your behavior. At that point, its your responsibility to reflect on yourself, seek out information, make a choice to change your behavior, or not to, and to accept whatever social and legal consequences come from your choice.
"I've raised three kids – and by definition, kids are socially inept until they learn the appropriate social skills.
Believe it or not, I know full well how kids are raised, having done the job myself (I was a single parent).
"This is how you go about it: modeling good behavior, talking about good and bad behavior, enforcing consequences on bad behavior."
This is AMAZINGLY CLOSE to some of my earliest comments on this topic thread. Two-thirds of it were rejected both vociferously AND repeatedly.
There is one question asked in the original post that truly *is* unanswerable.
"I vividly remember a tournament pen-and-paper game (maybe Paranoia?)"
You might think this is a silly question. A pointless question. An offhand afterthought.
But think about it my little infrared… maybe that question answers all of the others. Maybe it's all a plot by those AI lovers to get at us proper meat people. Or maybe it's the Psions and their degenerate mutie jealousy.
One thing I know for sure – and I'll bet my sixth clone on it – the Computer is behind it all. Watch your backs infrareds.
Frankenstein Destroyers forever! Death to the Computer!!!
(just an attempt at some levity…….. or is it ???)
@Jeremy: If all you were suggesting was "buy a pistol", I might think that might not work, but I wouldn't call you an asshole. Actually, given what I know to be the rules about personal attacks for the Popehat living room, I'll rephrase: It's the add-on of "or surrender their 'you go, girl' card" that puts your comment well into asshole territory.
Personally, I have a fair amount of self-defense training, but again, isn't it preferable to deter assault? And isn't a little visible backup in the form of a friend or a supportive atmosphere a useful deterrent? (But again, I have to emphasize this, If I didn't have any self-defense training, or if, as is the case, I chose not to carry a weapon, that does not mean that I would be to blame if I were assaulted and could not defend myself.)
For the verbal side of things: I'm not denying anyone their right to free speech, including speech that I find offensive or even reprehensible. Have I (or anyone else here) called for anyone to be arrested for what I deem to be offensive speech? No. There is no right not to be offended.
By the same token, there is no right to freedom from criticism for speech. If I think someone is behaving badly, I have the full right to criticize it. I'd have that right, even if I were wrong.
Reread my comment: I said it's good to a have a little backup when speaking up in one's own defense. That's all. Surely you can understand that.
I disagree with this assessment. I do agree that the people who comprise the majority of the problem (or at least the majority of the more egregious violations) as being the type that already know it doesn't fly (my Group 3 above), but I think the vast and overwhelming majority of offenders fall into the category of unintentional or uninformed (Group 2 and 1 above). I don't have any particular proof of this statement other than that it holds true for almost every other social group and culture in the world and I have seen no evidence to suggest that the geek culture in any different in this regard.
The idea that men grope or harass because they are too "awkward" to get social clues is bullshit. Harassers know and exploit social rules to get away with it.
This article breaks it down better than I can in this limited space: http://www.jaredaxelrod.com/main/2013/07/02/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-con-harassment/#comment-130602
@TM
"So in the social context you wre raised in, is the most offensive part of your proposed interaction the fact that a drink (presumably a deeper social interaction) was offered before names were exchanged? Because in the context I was brought up in, the use of "babe" as a reference to someone you're not romantically involved in to be the more offensive part."
My geeky/nerdy circle I guess developed the term "babe" as a universal pronoun and I continue to use it as such, not universally certainly, but within all family and friend interactions.
I would say I have a strong aversion to the anonymous drink offer – and seriously, what geeks or nerds hang out in places where that's a reasonable pickup line? – because it offers a social cue that the proposition is based on almost zero knowledge of the targeted individual other than their physical appearance.
I mentioned this in my original comment here, that I am not totally current on 2013 geek/nerd subcultures, but I'm not aware of it having traveled so far from my own experience that physical non-conformity isn't a part any longer. (i.e., it's really hard to be a geek/nerd if you're traditionally "hot") So a rejection of physical appearance judgments was a part of the credo; we accepted each other whether we were tall-skinny-geeky like Ken, or short-dumpy-nerdy like me. What mattered was how you did on the exam or whether you were a good DM – in other words, brains, creativity, SF/F creds that would be completely unavailable in a social context without conversation.
It feels like the anonymous drink overture would be definitionally "creepy" to most female geeks/nerds, because it would be so far out of their comfort zone to receive it, as it would be for a male geek/nerd to proffer it in the first place.
@James Pollock: I was going to lay off the "hit your dog with a newspaper if it misbehaves" analogy, because as a number of people have pointed out, men actually aren't dogs. But since you brought up the argument and also quoted someone talking about teaching their children, I'll come back to it, one last time. (well, probably the last time.)
I don't have a dog at the moment, but my parents do, and I've been working with my parents' dog on a number of behavioral issues, the most serious being aggression towards other dogs. (I could get into the dog's messed-up and abusive early life, before my parents, but suffice it to say, the dog has problems.) A large part of my work with the dog involves carefully taking her to places where she is likely to see other dogs (but where I can be confident that we can move to a safe distance if needed). When she starts to show excessive interest in another dog, I do in fact correct her (not by hitting her, but with a "Leave it!") and distract her (oddly enough, by putting her leash on top of her head, which of course doesn't hurt her but keeps her diverted).
Here's the thing, though: If my family's dog were to attack or menace another dog or another person, it would not be the responsibility of the other dog or the other person to fix the problem. That would be MY responsibility, as the dog's owner (or owner family in this case).
Do you see where this is going?
Then again, if the analogy did work (which I don't think it does, but if it did), I would think it's quite evident from this thread that some dogs don't learn no matter how many newspapers they're being hit with.
(OK, that was perhaps uncalled for, so now I'm going to hit myself with a newspaper.)
People quoted this a lot, and you later complain that it was taken from "an angry response" to being accused of blaming rape victims or some such, which is certainly understandable, but the thing is, I don't recall you retracting that statement (my sincerest and most unreserved apologies if you did and I missed it). It does contribute to an apparently widely held perception that yes, in fact you are saying that 1) "harassment" happens primarily because not enough "victims" (your quotes, not mine) complain, 2) harassers can't be expected to change if womenkind, as a whole, doesn't change to correct them, and 3) that the onus falls on them to fix things. You seem to be complaining about the straw man argument because you do not believe 3) to be true and you are not trying to argue that 3) is true. That certainly could be true. However, it seems that many people are not trying to make a straw man argument, but instead honestly read your posts as arguing that 3) is true. I don't know if we comprise an acceptable critical mass of constructive negative feedback to be taken seriously.
Very interesting. I've seen a number of friend level pet names in groups, but never "babe". That said, I still wonder, was it not a social taboo for your group to use the pet name outside interactions with existing friends? Or am I ascribing too much meaning to your word choice here and your choice of "Hey babe" could be replaced with "Excuse me Miss" and the scenario would be equally creepy to you?
Once again, I would like to highlight how completely differently we view two parts of a interaction, finding offense in different aspects. Social dynamics get even harder when you mix different geographical groups.
3 comments:
1) Now it's my turn to apologize for not clarifying my assumptions, in my arguments, drink could mean anything from alcohol, to coffee, to sodas to mil shakes and also reasonably (at a con) be substituted with "lunch at [fast food place here]"
2) Coffee geeks are a thing now, drinks are a geeky topic.
3) Unless we're using different understandings of the word, part of my argument rests on this request not being a "pick up line" at all. Merely a friendly, neutral social invitation.
"The fact that you use "victim" in quotes makes it clear that is you've already made up your mind that certain behavior isn't harassment."
Yes. That would be the behavior described IN THE PASSAGE YOU QUOTE… "having someone attempt to start a conversation with you does not make you a victim"
If you are of the opinion that having someone attempt to start a conversation with you DOES make you a victim, I don't see how any part of social society is possible for you (and I'm sorry for victimizing you, you poor bastard.)
"I know that walking up to a woman I don't know and groping her is harassment."
Good for you. Don't do it. Say, did you know that this is true of groping men, as well? (That's a rhetorical question. Just wondering how tied to sexist interpretation you are.)
"Just who are you arguing for exactly? You seem to be arguing on behalf of the down-trodden, well-intentioned geek, haplessly offending women because he doesn't know any better."
Well, that's where I started, then I got derailed into defending myself against accusations of supporting rape and various other indefensible actions.
"The guys (and some women, too) who comprise the vast majority of harassers, and of the problem, don't have a problem with "not knowing 'which shit will not fly.'" They have all the information they need"
Great! So, to go back 350 or so messages, the next step is to make sure they get negative consequences whenever they cross the line. Maybe not jail time every time, but ejectment, perhaps even physical force, might be in order.
This is not new argument. AFAIK, nobody has argued anything other than people who know they're doing wrong should be treated as people who are doing wrong. I do object, however, to people who don't know they're doing wrong being lumped in with them, and I STRONGLY object to people who actually AREN'T doing something wrong being lumped in with them.
"Many posters have pointed out that they do give negative feedback, at which point the overarching theme of your posts seems to become "good for you, but women culture at large is at fault."
You've mixed to different things here that shouldn't be mixed. The first part, "good for you" indicates that I think this is part of the actions necessary to achieve the change they wish to see. The second part is part of the answer to "I would give feedback, but people would call me bad things or I might even be targeted for more victimization" to which the full response is "it is up to you to make that decision. It is true that sometimes people who complain righteously are targeted unfairly/wrongly. If you choose to remain silent about things that offend you, you can't expect them to change on their own. If more people stood up, the targeting of righteous complainers would be substantially less severe. (That's the "it's the fault of womenkind" part… even though in my formulation it isn't sexist as it is in your summary. (The inspiration for "speak up, and get everyone else you know to speak up about what change you want, rather than just waiting for things to change on their own, because they won't", is the letter from Birmingham Jail. But I really didn't need to draw false complaints of racism on top of the false complaints of sexism.)
The "but it's hard to speak up!" defense is true, it IS hard. The only way I know of to make things better (i.e., to achieve change) is to endure those unfair/unwarranted attacks, and get large numbers of other people to as well. Sometimes the effort fails, because a million people make the independent decision that it's not worth it in their case.
I did not create this dynamic, and I don't even contribute to its upkeep. I just said what I see.
"Even if some women give negative responses, if not enough of them do, then it's not these guys' faults that they can't get it through their thick heads."
In a word, no.
If not enough of them do, then the tactic of suppression works, and change does not occur. The people who are guilty of wrongs remain just as guilty of wrongs as they are now.
"If you're doing something to people…"
At this point you start accusing me of doing things I don't do now, didn't do before, and don't plan to do in the future.
"I would say I have a strong aversion to the anonymous drink offer – and seriously, what geeks or nerds hang out in places where that's a reasonable pickup line?"
At every con I've ever been to, the hotel bar has not been lacking for clientele. And… Starbucks. Clear the geeks out of Starbucks, and they'll be as empty as the Blockbuster next door.
"Here's the thing, though: If my family's dog were to attack or menace another dog or another person, it would not be the responsibility of the other dog or the other person to fix the problem."
Trade shoes for a moment, and don't be the dog's owner, because (duh) people don't have owners to train them. There you are, alone on the sidewalk. An unleashed dog approaches you and jumps on you. At that point, whose job is it to get the dog off of you? It's not you because this is somehow imposed on you by society. It's you because you're the one who wants the dog off you.
Then, AGAIN… don't you wish someone at some point had taught this dog not to jump on people before it came anywhere near you? It's easier to teach a dog not to jump on you if the training starts from the first jump rather than it is if you let the dog jump on people for a while and then decide to start training him (or her!) not to.
If you can get leash laws passed for Con-goers, I suppose that ALSO would be a solution. I suspect that there would be many unanticipated side effects, though.
Can't believe that no one has mentioned what happened to gamer and cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian when she dared, dared to question the bullshit portrayal of women in video games. The results were the worst sort of shit-smelling foulness emanating from the Internet today.
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/
Oh, and further on the dog metaphor.
If you are walking down the street, and an unleashed dog menaces you so that you fear for your safety… and as a result you pull out your pistol and shoot the dog dead in the street, that will be an unfortunate event for the dog and sad for the dog's family, but as has been stated upthread, you are free to consider your own safety before worrying about the feelings of the dog's family.
My favorite moment has arrived: when someone, cornered at last, turns to the other person and accuses them of doing exactly what he has been doing all along.
No, James, I won't play. Your MO is plain to see. Enjoy it!
Hmm. Guess the dog thing isn't done. That's what I get for reading one comment at a time.
"if the analogy did work (which I don't think it does, but if it did), I would think it's quite evident from this thread that some dogs don't learn no matter how many newspapers they're being hit with."
True. Sometimes you have banish the dog to backyard, and sometimes even to the pound.
Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of freaks jumping on lawns ("behold your allies" excepted) but the comment count is pretty high for such a recent post. Well played, Ken, but I'm still waiting for a Prenda update. I'm getting a bit lost amid the emergency motions, motions for reconsideration, etc.
Actually, one post made me a bit angry, and in retrospect it's a bit surprising which one.
I disagree with the specifics (James P did a decent job of mocking them already), but it's not so unreasonable to propose a standard for purposes of debate. (James P did a bit of that for another part of the debate: listing areas of apparent consensus re harrassment/assault. Christina was just trying to define "creepy", if I understood her correctly.) So I wonder why my initial reaction was something along the lines of (and I initially visualized typing it in all caps, but I'll spare you) "you don't get to define what's acceptable!"
I do of course continue to think that no one person is entitled to declare social norms by fiat, but I wonder why I leapt to the conclusion that that's what Christina was trying to do. I definitely felt some anger. I read the Internet like everybody else, and it's full of people proposing social norms or actual legislation that would take away my right to do practically anything you can think of, but I usually just shrug. For some reason, my right to have sex with people without ever knowing their names is more emotionally precious to me than, say, my right to travel within the US without an _ausweiss_.
(By the way, this post should not be read as a call for lectures in epidemiology.)
"It does contribute to an apparently widely held perception that yes, in fact you are saying that 1) "harassment" happens primarily because not enough "victims" (your quotes, not mine) complain,"
No, those are YOUR quotes. Unless having someone attempt to start a conversation = harassment. I'll paraphrase "having someone try to start a conversation with you does not make you a victim." Can you NOT see that this is a different thing?
"2) harassers can't be expected to change if womenkind, as a whole, doesn't change to correct them"
This is also pulled from when I was discussing people who who make approaches, not people who harrass (because again, these are not the same thing at all.)
"3) that the onus falls on them to fix things."
Trifecta!
For my ACTUAL opinions on harassment, rather than your apparently third-hand assessment of them, consult my comments when I talk about harassment. Try starting here:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-9/#comment-1073706
I'll defend the opinions I've actually expressed.
"My favorite moment has arrived: when someone, cornered at last, turns to the other person and accuses them of doing exactly what he has been doing all along."
I'm glad you finally realized what you were doing.
Jeremy wrote:
I come from a country where we don't have a bill of rights, so I find framing this as a rights issue philosophically problematic in multiple ways, but I'll use rights-rhetoric to respond in kind in the interests of avoiding further derail:
My lack of a right to *not be offended* by you does not establish any obligation on me to *endure* being offended by you.
I have a right to use my free speech to object to speech I find offensive, and to criticise that speech to the utterer and to others.
I have a right to use my free association to walk away from and refuse future interaction with people whose speech I find offensive.
I have a right to use my free speech to tell others about people with whom I prefer to avoid and why (and especially why if their gathering makes it impossible for me to avoid those people then how I'll spend my money somewhere else).
I have a right to use my free speech to document instances of others' free speech which contribute to a hostile/chilly environment which marginalises/excludes me/others like me/others unlike me, and to engage in activism to raise awareness of these hostile/chilly behaviour patterns and suggest that communities are missing out on huge potential for improvement/growth when these hostile/chilly behaviour patterns are tolerated just because it's one subgroup's traditional mode of interaction.
When I use my free speech this way I am not refusing to be an equal adult by declining to abide by traditional rules of engagement that are presented as not just the way things are for everybody but also apparently the way things always should be for everybody (as Jeremy suggests in several of his comments). When I use my free speech this way I am insisting that the way things are is not always the way that things should be, and that my voice has just as much right to be one of the voices negotiating the accepted rules of engagement as anybody else's, and should I be not listened to then I have just as much right to vote with my dollars by walking away with them still in my pocket (and recommending to others that they might consider doing the same) as anybody else does.
To conclude my tealdeering by touching on an analogy that has been made before many times in these discussions, there's a reason that bars have bouncers to enforce their guidelines for acceptable behaviour, and it's because they attract more patrons by making their spaces safer for the vulnerable, and that means more profit. That it happens to be an ethics-of-protection choice doesn't mean that it isn't also (and even primarily) a pragmatic choice about getting and keeping bums on seats.
Cons of course have the right to choose to have fewer bums on their seats by ignoring changing trends in market preferences if they prefer to play it that way, but that's a sure path to stagnation and eventual withering IMO.
I love the parallels to the original topic.
James,
I've read Popehat a long time, but have only started to comment recently because 1) I finally have free time but mostly because 2) I like this community, I don't want to make too bad an impression on it (especially since I'm a practicing attorney now), and I know from experience that I come off as an aggressive, condescending asshole on the internet. I don't mean to (most of the time), but I let my tone get away from me and it just happens, and I didn't even realize it until some people I respected pointed it out to me.
From your anger and frustration, it seems clear to me that you feel sincerely misunderstood, and I acknowledge the possibility that the error might be on the listener end. But it seems unlikely. Many people, including Ken now, seem to read your posts as saying things that you claim you don't mean to say. We might all be wrong. It's not an unreasonable suggestion. But for the sake of your own blood pressure, and more fruitful discussions for the rest of us, you may want to get a friend you trust, buy him a beer, and ask him to read over some of what you post online and to tell you what he thinks you were trying to say.
lelnet: "…where other people's first reaction to a casual offer to buy a drink and have a conversation is "OMG you're trying to drug and rape me!"."
Hey, Lelnet, I said no such thing and the fact that you had to invent that shows me that you are just as much a liar as T "Disco Fever" M. When total strangers come up to you with unsolicited offers of alcohol, then it pays to be wary. If you can't grok that, then you're pretty hopeless.
@TM
"3) Unless we're using different understandings of the word, part of my argument rests on this request not being a "pick up line" at all. Merely a friendly, neutral social invitation."
There's my disconnect, I guess. I'm not fathoming another situation outside the pickup attempt wherein someone would anonymously offer to buy a drink for a stranger (in this scenario we're discussing, not generally, and absent other cues like overhearing someone upset because they lost their wallet or something), without having a bit of other social interaction first. Is it really easier for a socially awkward person basically to ask someone out than it is to do other preliminaries? I think a "friendly, neutral social invitation" would not look this way in any kind of bar. Even if a situation remains anonymous for a while (e.g., two strangers waiting for a delayed plane), don't you exchange names before heading to Peets?
Oh, and about "babe". We consciously and in parody took it from the master class, so at the start it was always somewhat biting and emphasized. But it morphed – I use it conversations with my mom LOL So "Excuse me Miss…" or just "Hi, can I…" resonate the same anonymity.
You know, I wonder how the socially inept manage to handle any part of their lives, if regular exchanges of conversation are so scary for them.
Job interviews? "I'm sorry if I seem out of it, you'll have to make allowances for me being socially inept. By the way, are you wearing a bra?"
Annual reviews with the boss? "Gee, it's a pity I'm so socially inept or I'd be able to interpret the subtle facial expressions you're giving me. I think my deodorant's still working, this shirt is only on its third day."
Customers or clients? "You know, I'd probably care more about making this sale if I weren't so socially inept. I suppose I could tell you about the improvements we've made to our product/service over the last year but instead I'll just stare at your cleavage because it makes me feel more comfortable to do that."
Yeah, I don't think so either. Funny how the SI's just save it up for social occasions with women they haven't met yet.
"Duh," really? Actually you could analogize parents to owners. I've trained dogs and taught pre-school and there is a lot of cross-over, particularly with toddlers. Parents and society train children. It's called "school." Also "culture." As in, "TV, books, and all the media we're constantly consuming, even at the moment we're typing."
This is sounding fantastic already! Your imagination is limited but specific.
Right… so you apparently believe this thing, it's quite a common trope, that by speaking up about harassment, women are somehow indicating an inability to cope with harassment in general. To correctly analogize here, what is happening is that women walk down sidewalks, strange unleashed dogs attack them, and when, after having fended off a dog attack, the woman announces that she had to fend off a dog attack, and would whosever dog this is please take it home, or I'll call the dog catcher, that this is the same thing as "I am unable to fend off dog attacks."
For whatever reason, these unleashed dogs attack women more often than men, but women are uniquely regarded as unreliable narrators when it comes to dog attacks. When women band together to go to City Hall or Congress to pass laws obliging people to leash their dogs, they are dismissed for being over-emotional, for revealing that they are too "weak" to fend off dog attacks, when it's precisely the fending that women are getting so tired of.
When women report dog attacks, they are accused of wanting to ruin the dog owner's life out of spite and regret. She should have known that dogs often roam the blocks between Elm and Washington anyway. She was probably playing with the dog, getting him all excited, playing tug of war. She should have known better. It's not a big deal anyway. But she's probably lying.
Brilliant. Just a brilliant analogy.
That's precisely the demand, yes. It means that if you agree, you participate. You own a dog? You know people who own dogs? Don't look the other way when your friend opens the door to let their dog run free through the streets, say, "Hey buddy, you should leash your dog!"
Agreed, we should stop teaching such strict gender roles to our children. We should make an effort not to restrict our kids' behavior based on our judgments about how well they're performing femininity or masculinity.
Oooooooohhhhh… side effects. *scary music*
Jeebus, I had hoped this was over.
As Aelfric, W. Ian Blankton, and other men have noted, not all men are driven by a constant and unrelenting drive for sex with any woman who appears slightly attractive to them.
But the fact of the matter is that most women, most of the time, do not like to be regarded as possible sex partners in every situation. This is why the "X guys hit on me while I was reading" is such a common response to these kinds of discussion.
Sure, each individual man does not know that the woman reading a book/looking at her laptop/drinking with friends is just being a human engaged in activities other than picking up/getting picked up.
But, perhaps the problem is men who see every woman (or those they find attractive) in every situation as a possible screw, rather than the women who just want to be left f-ing alone.
" you may want to get a friend you trust, buy him a beer"
Why would I hit on my friend?
@Anne Mouse
I wasn't really submitting something to be rigorously enforced but rather something that might guide safe and respectful interactions with total strangers for those who are less adept as social cues. Plus, wasn't there a lot of asking of "how is a geek to know what to do, women are so f-ing unpredictable"? You could be unpredictable by responding to "Hi, I'm –" with "No, no, I prefer it anonymous!" :-)
@ James Pollock
""I'll have guys asking me out, offering to buy me a soda, trying to touch my hair."
The third is battery, but the first two sound inoffensive. That is, barring evidence that you do not wish to be asked out or consume a free soda, offering these is not inherently wrong in the same what that handling any part of you without asking permission first would be."
It's annoying because I'm there to play chess. I'm there because I paid my entry fee like everyone else and would like to not waste it due to being distracted. I'm there to prepare for my match the exact same way every male player is. You might catch two guys who know each other tossing a, "How'd you do?", but beyond that, there isn't a lot of conversation going on–barring the perennial poker game in the corner. Like any other competitor I don't want conversation. I don't want to be interrupted when I'm staring at a pocket board or looking up a game in Botvinnik vs Tal 1960. Why does their desire to flirt trump my desire to be left alone like any of the male players?
@Sally Strange: Thanks.
Thanks, as well, to the women posting here who have revealed their traumas. I'm of too old a generation to do this.
Thanks, also to women and men posting here who are trying to work against the sexist abuse of women in all venues.
And, thanks, of course, to Ken.
"You know, I wonder how the socially inept manage to handle any part of their lives, if regular exchanges of conversation are so scary for them."
Funny, I wonder the same thing about people whose first assumption in any interaction with the opposite sex is that they're probably about to be raped. Might it be because you have plenty of reason to believe that your boss or your client _isn't_ going to force you over his desk and have his way with you? I mean, he probably _could_, but he hasn't so far, and as long as the two of you aren't completely alone, chances are he'd get caught if he tried, even if he _were_ the sort of person who would. But hey, you never know…there probably won't be alcohol in an office, but he might have laced the water bottles…can't possibly be too careful, with all those men out there turning ordinary interpersonal interactions into opportunities to drug and rape you.
But I do have to thank you for coming here and posting. You see, some folks have been arguing that people like you are just an imaginary strawman, and don't really exist, and are all in our heads, because we're the only ones who have a problem.
Sally, I'm afraid I've no idea what your point might be, and I suggest that the reason might be that you're not actually addressing my comment.
I got as far as "the dog owner is the analogy of the parent", and since that's not relevant (nor is the fact that most people are socialized at a young age… the people in question were not, so unless you have blueprints for a functional time machine, it's too late to go back and train them properly in childhood.
Then you went off on a tangent that doesn't seem applicable.
Stuff your thanks, Lelnet. This isn't your blog and its not your place to thank me. And since you are still lying about what I said, then I think what's in your head should stay there. If it doesn't leak out.
I've only read about two thirds, maybe three fourths of the comments and…
Ken, you can expect people to be defensive about this topic for a good long while to come. A couple of people up thread have hit the main issues here, to wit:
People, by and large, don't want to analyse their own behaviour too closely, lest they find themselves guilty of what's being discussed–either by perpetrating humiliating/creepy behaviour or by standing by while it's inflicted on others. After all, who wants to admit to him/herself that he/she is thoughtless in his/her interactions with people he/she is attracted to?
On the other conversation in the comments–what is creepy? what is harassment? where are the lines for the poor misguided, socially inept?
The only thing that you can be absolutely positively sure means yes is YES. Everything else can mean no.
When in doubt, ask before groping, grabbing, carrying out of the room–and be prepared for the answer to be no.
If you grab first, hoping it works, then be prepared to have your face slapped, your actions reported and your name passed around in warning.
I never said I disagreed with you. I simply said that for some subset of behavior (in this case, talking to a stranger), you have made up your mind that it's not harassment. The whole point was not to attack your position (as I said not two sentences ago, I don't disagree completely), but as a jumping board to my next questions, which are:
How did you form your opinion that it wasn't harassment? You see, much of your argument centers on the idea that men, without proper information, can't learn to behave better. It's not a bad argument on its face. However, you also seem to believe that response of the "victims" is the single best source of information. So to restate the question that you so adroitly dodged, why do you feel that starting a conversation is not harassment? Is it solely because you've started conversations with strangers who have mostly responded positively? Or did you draw from a larger body of information, friends, family, media, watching interactions that you aren't directly involved in, etc?
At the time, I was hoping to have a sincere and productive discussion with you. That hope is quickly fading.
Also, I'm glad that you pointed out the "your quotes" thing. When I was hastily typing, all I was trying to convey was that you had made a judgment that certain behavior was not harassment. However, you interpreted it, based on tone, context, etc. to also imply that I disagreed with your judgment, which is not at all what I meant. But now I see that a reasonable person could interpret it that way, which is why I clarified my position–without putting the blame on you or anyone else for deliberately misinterpreting me.
Also, you're right that my interpretation of your views shouldn't be taken at face value, just not for the reasons you think.I read all the comments to your linked posts a while ago. Much like how your interpretation of my "your quotes, not mine" statement was no doubt made in the context of my limited posts here, my interpretation of your recent posts are in the context of your previous ones–at least the ones I've read in the last few months. People like sorrykb, Kat, John Beaty, and of course Ken have known you–or at least your online persona–far longer than I have even been reading Popehat. I readily acknowledge that they have far more context than I do, and I defer to their judgments.
Also, for the record, I don't think you're a creeper James. Obviously, I can never truly put myself in a woman's shoes, but I imagine even as a woman in a bar somewhere, I wouldn't think you're a creeper, either.
@Sally Strange: OK, now the dog analogy is actually working.
And thanks for pointing so much clearly that I've been able to the problematic assumption that "by speaking up about harassment, women are somehow indicating an inability to cope with harassment in general."
"Like any other competitor I don't want conversation."
Ah. So there's no problem. If nobody wants conversation, there isn't any, and you're spared the curse of human interaction.
DRS, on the subject of people in a bar offering to buy one another drinks: "You do not accept a beverage from a total stranger BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE PUT SOMETHING IN IT."
It's not the only time you said so here, just the first. There was also a "have you ever heard of a date rape drug", and numerous expressions of essentially the same notion in different forms of phrasing.
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
Congratulations, James Pollock, on running the (possibly) longest troll on a Popehat comments thread.
Really? That's quite an astonishing level of density you've attained there. I honestly find that hard to believe, but I'll take your word for it.
"argument centers on the idea that men, without proper information, can't learn to behave better."
Well, assuming you mean "closer who what the women they interact with want" is "better". And it isn't men, per se, that this applies to, it's anyone. In this case, there's a subset of women generally who express A) the wish that certain behaviors be stopped, and B) that creepiness in general be curtailed.
"you also seem to believe that response of the "victims" is the single best source of information." In the context that comes from, yes. To recap:
To the complaint that some men use inappropriate means to begin social interaction, yes there ARE inappropriate ways to begin social interaction that should be stamped out as actively as possible. At the other end of the scale, is the complaint that invitations to begin social interactions (not all of them are pickup attempts, though most of them are seen through that lens) are… not so much inherently wrong, as clumsy, poorly timed, poorly executed, inept. (Now, I'm talking about initial approaches here. If they draw a "no", then it's no and failure to fuck off is wrong.)
THIS is the area where, yes, women, it IS up to you, collectively, to correct the approaches, IF you (collectively) want them to get better (where here, better means both better executed AND better considered… meaning the dude is more likely to accurately forecast his chances before proceeding).
This is, of course, assuming that women, collectively, want these approaches to get better. It assumes that the men want to get better. It assumes that there are, in fact, some matches to be made in geek culture (I think the anecdotal evidence supports this assumption).
As for the big question: I couldn't tell you what influences form my opinions on social interaction. They formed 40 years ago, and I don't remember.
Actually, Canonical, I hesitated to offer this before, as the well-known trope is that women don't want men to actually try to SOLVE their problems, they just want men to listen to them talk about them and make vague agreement noises. However, I think I have a solution to your "I want to be left alone" antisociability.
A small tabletop sign, perhaps made out of a tented piece of ordinary printer paper, that says "don't hit on me, K?" which you can place in your vicinity as you do whatever it is people do at chess tournaments or wherever else you want no social interaction.
Simple, cheap, and unambiguous.
"Really? That's quite an astonishing level of density you've attained there."
If I have achieved greatness, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Thanks for the lift. Really. Couldn't have done it without you.
"Stuff your thanks, Lelnet. This isn't your blog and its not your place to thank me."
Well, that's nonsense. If he(?) learned something from you, then he(?) owes you thanks for sharing. This has nothing to do with whose blog it is (or isn't).
Apparently, the irrational anger isn't as one-sided as Ken thinks it is.
"However, I think I have a solution to your "I want to be left alone" antisociability.
A small tabletop sign, perhaps made out of a tented piece of ordinary printer paper, that says "don't hit on me, K?" which you can place in your vicinity as you do whatever it is people do at chess tournaments or wherever else you want no social interaction.
Simple, cheap, and unambiguous."
Quick, simple question. Do you actually believe this is a good solution?
Do you think the sign would lead to no social interaction?
I guess it comes down to this: life experience has taught me that, if I'm below a certain level of attractiveness in the approachee's mind, there is literally nothing I can say or do by way of self-introduction that WOULDN'T make me a "creeper." That doesn't mean that there aren't horrible creeps in the world who need to be called out, as Ken has ably done. But it's also hard not to wonder if one wouldn't also count as a creep simply by virtue of being oneself and having the temerity to launch a interaction. This (often well-grounded) fear can make one overlook the situations where it's actually warranted.
And the hell of it is, the sort of stuff Ken cites deserves to be called out in the strongest possible terms. But if you're simply underconfident, abashed, and socially lost, these accounts of the consequences of social misadventures is a lot like flicking a Zippo inside the Hindenberg–"ohGodit'sjustasbigaminefieldasIfearedohGodohGodohGod" … Cue meltdown of any confidence one had been building up for a rainy day. Best not to try, one suspects. That's not anyone else's fault, but maybe it explains the vehemence of some responses … the sense that insult is being piled onto injury in some way.
"Do you think the sign would lead to no social interaction?"
Alas, no; there are idiots who test limits mixed into any significant sample of human beings.
But, treating someone who ignores obvious and unambiguous signs that they're not welcome as if they're idiots who don't understand when they're not welcome doesn't offend ME in the same way as treating people who HAVEN'T YET ignored obvious and unambiguous signs that they're not welcome as if they're idiots who don't understand that they're not welcome.
I'm afraid I was unable to come up with any other option that would invariably and reliably drive away any social interaction. You have alternate suggestions?
I suppose it COULD be just part of an orchestrated plan to affect the outcome of chess tournaments by playing mindgames on poor Canonical. But if so, they're two or three moves ahead.
"Alas, no; there are idiots who test limits mixed into any significant sample of human beings."
Okay. So you don't think your suggestion would work perfectly.
Do you think it would work at all?
By that, I mean do you think the amount of social interaction would be less with the sign than without the sign?
James Pollock wrote:
Chances at what, exactly? (And no, I'm not being flippant; I'd actually like to know your answer.)
I have a few questions, just to clarify: (I think it has been sufficiently established that both men and women can be subject to unwanted behavior so I will not be making this gender specific.) If as a creepee, it is my responsibility to make it known to you, the creeper, that your actions are unwanted (and possibly inform you as to what actions are more wanted so that you change for the better), then isn't it also your responsibility as the creeper who doesn't want to be called a creeper to spend the time learning what is socially acceptable? (Perhaps be talking to family members or acquaintences you feel comfortable with.) Furthermore, isn't reasonable to expect you to learn from your mistakes or to criticize you if you choose to continuously follow bad advice?It seems to me that if the onus is on one it must also be on the other.
Why, yes, Mark, I think it would work much like the "no solicitors" sign on my front door. I mean obviously, the devil is in the details. A couple of colored hearts and a smiley face drawn on it probably defeats the text.
Since last time, I DID think of another possible solution to the "I don't want any social interactions of any kind" problem, but I don't think anyone will like it… purdah.
Still open to suggestions.
"Chances at what, exactly? (And no, I'm not being flippant; I'd actually like to know your answer.)"
Not being found unwelcome from the moment of first approach.
And (unrelated) perhaps this is all just a ploy by the Popehat writers to avoid having to post anything new, figuring a large enough group of us can be focused on a single comment thread for days, maybe even weeks. Yikes, that means (gasp) This is turning into Usenet.
@James Pollock: OK. Thanks for the clarification.
"isn't it also your responsibility as the creeper who doesn't want to be called a creeper to spend the time learning what is socially acceptable?"
Yes, it IS incumbent upon you, the creeper, to make the effort to learn. The problem we have now is that although they're making the effort, some of them are choosing poor sources for their information, and getting misinformed (badly). Then, when they try to put their bad technique into action, and it fails, some of them determine (correctly) that the problem is the technique, and some of them determine (incorrectly) that the technique is fine but their execution needs practice.
"Furthermore, isn't reasonable to expect you to learn from your mistakes"
Yes, (although we (the rest of us) would expect you to learn FASTER if someone is pointing out the right path for you.)
"or to criticize you if you choose to continuously follow bad advice?"
Yes (although again, assisting the misdirected improves the likelihood.)
Also, this assumes that GOOD advice is actually available. Smacking someone for following bad advice if it's the only advice they have solves nothing.
@James Pollock: Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure equal responsibility is going around.
Now as to this: "Chances at what, exactly? (And no, I'm not being flippant; I'd actually like to know your answer.)"
Not being found unwelcome from the moment of first approach.
Honestly, my answer is basically your comment about communication. I would love to be pleasant and talk to whoever might approach regardless of my interest. The problem is my niceness is sometimes misconstrued and then I am accused of "leading people on". I thought I was being nice, subject X thought I was flirting. I mention my boyfriend, but as you have mentioned earlier that is not always taken as non-interest. Now if I tell subject X I am not interested, I get told I wasted his time and/or didn't give him a chance and/or am misreading his signs and/or am a bitch. I am often then a bit apprehensive about any approaching male, so better communication is needed on both sides of the aisle.
"Why, yes, Mark, I think it would work much like the "no solicitors" sign on my front door. I mean obviously, the devil is in the details. A couple of colored hearts and a smiley face drawn on it probably defeats the text."
I have a suggestion for you then. Try it.
Any place where social interaction is possible/likely will do for a venue.
The experimental methodology is easy enough to work out.
I think you will learn something.
As for your request for a suggestion:
"I'm afraid I was unable to come up with any other option that would invariably and reliably drive away any social interaction. You have alternate suggestions?"
Nope. I do not know of any ways to make a human "invariably and reliably" do anything.
(I do have a suggestion for the phrase "invariably and reliably" though. Drop either "invariably" or "reliably". It will help.)
Dictatortot,
I think one of the few virtues of the PUA community is that they espouse the idea that looks matter a lot less than we all think, and if we don't let our lack of physical attractiveness handicap ourselves mentally, they become much less of an actual handicap. When this is done more like a self-help seminar ("Just because you're not Brad Pitt doesn't mean you're not a great person with a lot to offer a potential mate") I think this is a great thing. When this is closer to the sort of thing Ken complains about, ("If she calls you a creep, great! That means it's working, so keep on creeping on, brah!") then it's really not helping anyone.
There are certainly superficial people who will reject even the most respectful approach from an "unworthy" supplicant as creepy, and learning not to let them bother you while remaining conscious of when your behavior might become legitimately threatening can be a challenge. Avoid committing battery and respect rejections (especially when punctuated by "or I'll call security"), and you're 90% of the way there.
Fat slob superviser/manager:
"What's the difference between a ham sandwich and a blowjob?"
Extremely shocked intern or new female hire 50%+ she considers herself a hardcore feminist (with plenty of wimmens studies on her transcript) 10%+ she's an out and proud committed lesbian hesitatingly replies: "I don't know?"
Slob *leans into her physical space*:
"LETS DO LUNCH!!!"
His standard introduction. He only gets worse to an exponential degree.
Really nice guy. Smart as hell. Extremely witty. Do anything for ya. An easy true friend to many people he meets. Never draws a whiff of a harassment complaint.
"There are certainly superficial people who will reject even the most respectful approach from an "unworthy" supplicant as creepy, and learning not to let them bother you"
That doesn't bother me… if they're shallow enough to not be interested because I'm not tall/buff/currently seated in a BMW, then any time I would have spent there would have been wasted, anyway… we're not a match. But what I would worry about is her talking about me as "creepy" with other women who have not made such a determination yet. Once you pick up that label, it's hard to shake, deserved or not.
I think I'm starting to get it. As a commenter pointed out earlier (sorry that I have forgotten who it was and am probably repeating your post) there are couple of different types of people who get angry at this type of conversation.
The first are the ones who feel the are misunderstood and not given a fair chance. This may stem from actions on their part (taking bad advice, failing to learn from mistakes, etc.) or from things beyond their control (past of the person they are trying to talk to, effects from other people, some people are assholes, etc.). For this group, we should try to educate them with good advice. Treat others as you would want to be treated. Refrain from using pet names (babe, sweetie, honey, etc.). Don't touch. Grow thick skin, a lot of people are jerks.
The second group knows what they are doing makes people uncomfortable and don't care. They are angry they are being called out for it. They are so convinced they are right and entitled to whatever they are doing, nothing an change their mind (see truthers, birthers, anti-vaxxers). They will always be angry. The only thing to do is to continue to tell them they are wrong and ignore the vitriol.
The goal is to be understanding but firm enough to help the first group so they don't turn into the second. Everyone's responsibility is to do as much as they can to treat others as human beings.
"Honestly, my answer is basically your comment about communication."
I have two possible avenues to respond, here. One is to apply the logic I've been espousing. Here, you are doing the best you can and (I'm assuming) not intending to waste anyone's time/be a bitch/etc. So… anyone unhappy with the way you are now who wants you to change needs to honestly and non-confrontationally tell you what changes they want. "Don't lead me on" falls into the same category of uselessness as "don't be creepy". But they might have other advice that is actually useful. If so, consider if it makes sense to correct. It's possible you actually ARE doing something that YOU consider "just being nice" that is coming off as "COME GET ME, YOU MAN-HUNK!" In a long-enough timespan, you'll learn to give of "nice, but not available" reliably, and guys who want something more than a few moments of sparkling conversation will recognize your lack of availability and won't "waste their time". Everybody wins!
The other avenue is to say "you wasted my time", "you led me on", and "you're a bitch" are all roughly equivalent to "sour grapes!" So long as you are happy with your interactions, your boyfriend is happy with your interactions*, then remain as you are and flatly ignore dudes who whine about it.
*If you really are leading people on, this is the person to consult first. Alas, this is not entirely reliable, as the jealous type will give you bad advice. Of course, it is your female friends who can best advise on THAT subject.
Holy crap I don't think I can read all the posts on here. I tried. I read hundreds. Then I refreshed, and there were 70 more.
So therefore I'll throw in my few cents anyway!
I think most of the "ARRHAGHGHGLBARRHALALAGLGLA" response stems from the fact that the people MAKING the response have more experience being unjustly accused of "creepiness" or what have you than they do of ACTUAL creepiness. And the fact that when the complainer IS in the wrong, it's not always "caught". And that reasoned dissent is OFTEN (depending on the circle) responded to with "you're just a misogynist!11!!!"
This results in them being TOO defensive, and in this I think they err. But I know I am ACTIVELY trying to avoid erring, and yet I've been acused of being a "rape defender" and perpetuator of "rape culture" before (oh, the ElevatorGate scandal…), despite the fact that I was doing and would do no such thing EVER.
While I like to think I'm a bastion of reason, of course, at the same time I can empathize, though obviously not agree, with those who defend the bad guys.
The "dongle" incident got the guy fired. That the tide eventually turned doesn't "fix" the problem that he was fired any more than the fact that rapes are prosecuted solves "rape culture". (And no, I'm not equating the concepts, just the relative situations. Obviously they are VASTLY, HUGELY different).
There IS a "rape culture". I don't participate in it. There IS a "misandrist culture", and I know neither I, nor the vast majority on here, participate in it. In fact, I would say the latter is far more of a "subculture". It's not even in the same LEAGUE as the "rape culture" concept. But denying it solves no purpose.
The point is that Bad Guys need to be stopped. And Awkward Guys need to be forgiven their awkwardness. The "social consequences" of awkwardness ARE THE AWKWARD SITUATIONS. The initial response to awkwardness seems, to me, sufficient consequence. It's when Awkwardness gets conflated with Bad that problems arise, and what most otherwise "Good Guys" do is conflate the accusations leveled at Awkwardness with those leveled at Bad Behavior.
Of course, there's also just plain idiots. Those are plentiful as well. As a Wise Man once said, the two most plentiful elements are Hydrogen and Stupidity.
But I really think the strangely vehement response Ken notes comes from otherwise Smart People who are Being Dumb in this circumstance. It's a perspective problem, and I won't say it's a "privilege" problem, because there are beneficial connotations there…I'm advocating that they only see the harms they've heard of/experienced, and inappropriately assume that the Bad Guys are suffering a similar fate, which is just as bad (or possibly worse) than the folks who conflate the Bad Guys with the Awkward Guys.
And, while James Pollock and I have had our significant disagreements, I believe the point he's making is that blame is not a zero-sum game. A Bad Guy can have 100% of their own blame, while someone who had the power to stop the Bad Guy MAY carry the blame for not doing so. I only hope somewhere in the hundreds of subsequent comments, he made clear a realization that sometimes that just can't happen, and that the weighing of "do something" versus "not do something" may be WILDLY weighed in favor of "not doing something" for a host of reaosns. That a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family does mean that he has, indeed, stolen a loaf of bread. But the alternative was allowing his family to starve. How does one appropriately adjudicate something like "responsibility" for something like that?
@James Pollock: I think all of the above is correct answer bc it's all about how subject x views my actions and me. I could do the exact same thing with two different people and get the two different responses. Just as "creepiness" is all about how subject y views your actions and you. It's incredibly subjective and that's the issue. (I think that pretty much everyone including you has stated that.) So we have to be as clear as possible. You give me the benefit of the doubt and I do the same for you. I'm just pointing out that guys can be just as complicated and illogical as girls.
@James Pollock: So it being 2 am and all I just realized I'm basically wrote what you said back to you. Sorry about that.
"That a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family does mean that he has, indeed, stolen a loaf of bread. But the alternative was allowing his family to starve. How does one appropriately adjudicate something like "responsibility" for something like that?"
I suspect that the answer depends heavily on whether or not one owns a bakery. Or a family.
@James Pollock,
I think the biggest danger of superficial people is for that small fraction of guys without the social skills/social support/self-awareness to eventually distinguish between "It's just one or two superficial girls who say I'm creepy solely because of my looks" and "There must be something wrong with my 'Wanna sit on my lap and talk about whatever pops up?' line."
I'm actually much less worried about girls talking, at least in terms of guys who hit on them. Unless she says something like "That guy literally kidnapped and raped me. I mean full out, 'It puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again," a woman isn't going avoid you without giving you a chance on the word of a mere acquaintance or someone she just met at a bar. If it's coming from a friend, she is more likely to give the friend's opinion more weight… but she's also more likely to know that her friend just puts down certain guys to boost her own ego and act accordingly.
Of course, while I'm sure some girl somewhere has thought I was creepy, I've never had the misfortune of picking up a long-term creepy label, so maybe I'm underestimating how easy it is to pick up that label undeservedly. I was platonically close to many girls in college though (I did dance)
(sorry, no idea how I prematurely fired off my post there)
Anyway, having been subjected to my fair share of candid girl-talk, I can't think of a single guy who seemed to get the label unfairly. A few were actually pretty attractive (to my straight guy eyes.) A few definitely were on the very low end of the attractiveness scale, but they definitely and repeatedly engaged in unwanted behavior that earned the label. One went to performances and took close ups of the girls with a telephoto lens. He actually tried to bond with me by sharing his pictures. Most didn't feature faces. Another was only called a "creeper" by fellow students. University police called him a "groper" when they picked him up.
Anyway, I guess no real point to my post other than to agree that some women (and some men) can be superficial, stuck-up bitches that put down potential suitor and to say I'm sorry if you've had to deal with more than your fair share of them.
@SIV,
Funny story, but I guess I'm missing your meaning. Are you illustrating that some behavior is acceptable in some circumstances but offensive in others, or that "wimmen's studies" majors are so hard up for jobs that they'll accept any job no matter how uncomfortable the environment?
"Of course, while I'm sure some girl somewhere has thought I was creepy, I've never had the misfortune of picking up a long-term creepy label"
Oh, it doesn't have to be long-term to be annoying. It can destroy a night out pretty good. And if you don't have very many of THOSE…
I'll just have to say that my observations differ from yours. But that's "observations", not "experiences".
One of the joys of insomnia is that one gets to talk to the 19-22 year olds who think it is just afternoon. So, thanks to this endless thread, I have had two conversations with different subsets of my son's friends.
Tonight/this morning, it was all young men. After the "ugh/really/shit/Jesus" responses, they started to make jokes: 'Dude, totally the girl buying coffee at WAWA was just waiting to be hit on;" "Oh yeah, that girl in the library the night before the Arabic exam really, really wanted me to hit on her." It went on until most of us were weeping with laughter.
But you know what? All of these young men just assumed that not every female in every situation was a potential sexual partner. So, maybe there is hope.
P.S. I love the idea that women should have to carry around signs saying they do not want to be pestered/hit on.
Perhaps sexually obsessed, juvenile men should wear buttons saying that they do not know how to behave like adults.
As has been noted, and then mostly ignored, much of the discussion has come down to a wildly unclear definition of "creepy". Calling rape, assault, groping, and putting date rape drugs in a drink are creepy in the same way that murder is being mean. Nobody will argue the point, but you've gone beyond the typically accepted scope of the word in order to make your points stronger.
Keeping within the normal scope of the word, the definition becomes subjective on many levels. Everything from how many times other people have attempted to interact and how lame their attempts were, to Iron Maiden T shirts and looking to long from across the room.
Since the only way to never come across as creepy to anybody is to never interact with anybody, we are ALL to some extent, creepy. Also, we all have different, and fluid definitions of what is creepy. We almost never include ourselves in this definition. I think much of the anger stems from there.
Until a real definition can be agreed upon (not a back door list of things that might be creepy) much of the argument is moot, because it is based on semantic differences. I say this after reading every post. Even that sounds creepy at the moment.
Of the examples pulled from links; blowjob inquiry, girl over the shoulder, neck kissing, copping a feel, and tattoo inspection? In my opinion they are all an invasion of space and borderline assault, except for the blowjob inquiry. (humor)While the author may have been a creep, and the lady in question may have been offended, there was, by the lady's own account, one girl in the room, and perhaps more, who were waiting to be asked that question, and it should be written off as a case of mistaken identity. (/humor)
@ChrisTS:
This is regards the PS more than the post immediately before it.
There does seem a difference between "pestering" and "hitting on", unless you're using a definition of "hitting on" I'm unfamiliar with (and perhaps my understanding of the term is flawed, too). While one can continue "hitting on" someone longer than one should, at which point it's "pestering" (or other adjectives that are harsher and just as warranted), even initial contact is often considered part of "hitting on"…and really, isn't it that initial contact (assuming non-awful initial contact such as groping etc.) that should be determining subsequent interaction (or subsequent non-interaction, as the case may be)?
Further, you do recognize that, socially, men are expected to be the initiator, right? And so therefore if they would like initiation, they will initiate unless they have some reason not to do so, because otherwise they can definitely expect (though certainly not be guaranteed…we're talking "generally socially" here) that it will not occur? It can be trivially argued this is a bad thing, but expecting men to NOT initiate contact when society expects them to do it if it's done at all seems a fool's errand.
Someday, perhaps gender relations will reach a point where, societally, women are expected to approach men to the same extent that men are expected to approach women. At that point, it would make more sense to (seem, anyway) to be advocating that men not necessarily approach ("hit on") women…since if they aren't approaching YOU, that might say something. In the meantime, you seem to be conflating concepts. Or maybe it's too late and I'm too drunk–tired, I mean tired, to understand what you're getting at.
I think the anger, victim blaming, vitriolence and fingers in ears behavior has to do with the mythology of geek culture. Many people have built of this grand idea that geek culture has always been a us against them, detail-obsessed, ultra-accepting thing with no women in it ever. You see this story built up in books, tv and movies.
The problem is it really isn't that true at all and very few people want to face that because it's not a pleasant truth.
Geek culture has always had women in it from the very start. It never was completely accepting of everyone for every sub-group and the majority weren't detail obsessed basement dwellers either.
The story of geek culture though is more appealing thematically though for many people. It makes them the stoic underdog whose moral center was truer than the despicable bullies. Of course this goes hand in hand with many sides wanting to make up stories then adjusting to reality. Both sides cherry pick for their stories of only man-hating bitches who are oversensitive and only women raping mansplainers. Most of the best examples of real incidents get ignored or turned into complete fabrications to fit one or the other.
Most of that seems like laziness to me. It's difficult to adjust to that not every person is exactly alike. It's difficult to adjust to the rules have changed. It's difficult to digest that the world does not work in either black and white or absolutes. Absolutes make for the easier argument. It easy to say attacking someone is wrong, it's hard to say what looks are wrong or not.
So people get mad. After all you are asking them to change what the story is. It's hard to portray yourself as the righteous underdog when you have to face that you were okay with men fondling women because they wanted to not because the women wanted it. It's the same train of thought that leads to "well they were dressed like X so obviously…" Or a priceless train of thought I encountered on a discussion about women and video games.
There is no women who play video games!
(provides stats on plenty of women playing video games)
There is no women playing real games like call of Duty or Halo!
(provides stats on plenty of women playing said games)
There is not alot of women playing those games!
(provides stats about how 40% of online CoD players are women)
Or even better how someone completely different talking about women in fantasy/science fiction fandom went. It went from no women, to barely any women, to they weren't real fans and ending with well they weren't pretty women!
Which leads to another point. Because the "rules" allowed men in geek fandom to not act in a manner which society would like, they didn't have to acknowledge women as people. Things like booth babes were common for years. But now people are saying that women at cons are in fact people and have been all along. Again making some people have to change because the story is changing so they aren't the pure of heart underdog.
"Things like booth babes were common for years."
Booth babes were around long before "geek culture" was a thing, and I suspect they'll be around for longer, too.
I suspect you might get some "booth babes" who happen to be dudes before you get no booth babes at all. Attractive people draw attention. Advertisers want attention drawn to them. That's not rocket science.
OK if we loop back for a minute? I've been listening and learning a lot, but what I think I need reassurance on is my "no".
From people who've contributed up the thread I've learned that a "no" to be a "no" has to be given in words not by gestures (so that I can't simply take out and brandish the pistol that I'll be packing in case things move on to Stage 2, When an Unequivocal No Simply Ain't Enough, because waving a pistol in someone's face is non-verbal and therefore not unequivocal enough). It has to be final, so not capable of being construed as "not now" or "not at the moment." And it simply mustn't be implied, since "Have you met my husband, the rugby-playing pathologically jealous six-foot four bloke with organised crime connections who's standing two feet behind your left ear, waving his own pistol and standing over a spade, a sack, a tarpaulin, several industrial grade meat cleavers and a five-gallon drum of cleaning fluid?" can, it is clear, easily be misconstrued as either an invitation to a threesome or some cheery sharing of interesting personal information in an effort to get to know the other person better.
So, I think I've mastered the basic principles, but the final artefact needs a bit of constructive criticism. So, will this do as a sufficient "no" to unwanted interaction with people at cons, which will leave both parties safer, clearer and happy in the fact that communication has been achieved without possibility of understanding?
"No. Absolutely not. And by no, I mean never. And by 'never' I mean 'not until the heat death of the universe, and then some.' No, nein, nyet, non; without argument, appeal, certiorari, equivocation, reversal, potential reversal, recission, cancellation, amelioration or any other qualification at all whatsoever. No fucking way, for the avoidance of any possible doubt.
Oh, and another thing. I realise that hand of yours which I have removed from its relentless crawl up my thigh towards my vagina for the fifth time now is only obeying the maxim Robert the Bruce derived from the spider. I now realise that I am wrong in assuming that because I have changed seats every single time you have done it and we are now sitting in a bar in Cincinnati, this evening having started in Cleveland, you would eventually have realised that your attentions in this manner are unwelcome by me. I now appreciate you might, reasonably, have assumed that I was merely hot or uncomfortable or wishing to stretch my legs. Sorry. I wasn't. I just wanted to get the fuck away from you and every single part of your anatomy, including (without limitation) your hands, fingers, feet, toes, tongue, dick, torso, thighs, pelvis, appendix, pancreas, intestine (lower and upper), lungs, liver, lights, kidneys, tonsils, trachea, ears, nose and spine.
Yes; I freely admit that by ruling out any touching by you I am opening myself up to being run over by a charging buffalo, out-of-control car or runaway train while you stand by, helpless, unable to pluck me out of its path without violating this arbitrary and unfair prohibition. However, that is a risk which, as an adult, I am prepared to take, and it is somewhat mitigated by the fact that this bar is on the 25th floor of a tall building and the bartender has informed me there have been no incidents of a similar nature within living memory here, so I hope you can quell your understandable anxiety.
I'm sorry for any misunderstanding my ambiguous signals up to now may have caused. But not, I hasten to repeat, sorry enough to tolerate another minute of your company. So – since I realise that for a woman to rise and go to the elevator may negate any previous statements she may have made on whether she has any intention of spending any time whatsoever in the proximity of any given individual – I propose to sit here and watch the sun go down. If you wish to leave, my husband will escort you to your car, since I understand it is a dangerous neighbourhood in which several recent unsolved homicides have taken place. If you do not wish to leave, that's fine, but if you speak to me, approach me, try lewd interpretative dance in my vicinity or interact with me in any way I shall shoot you. Good evening, Dr No."
"There is not alot of women playing those games!
(provides stats about how 40% of online CoD players are women)"
I'm not disagreeing, but I am honestly kind of surprised, particularly considering the abuse they have to take (http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/)…can you provide those stats? (I did, at least, know that that's roughly the split on gaming overall)
One thing I suddenly thought of that we haven't discussed much this far is the role of alcohol, and its effects on both pursuers and pursued.
I think that's because "I was drunk" is not an excuse for anything.
I've never found the idea of booth babes to be any different than ring card girls or any other non-geek analogues. I think part of the problem Ken notes stems from the fact that geek culture was once counter-culture. The learning to shower once a day thing in an earlier comment notwithstanding, geek culture isn't defined by lack of social skills. A high correlation wouldn't surprise me–it matches my observations for sure–but what defines it for me are the shared interests and hobbies that the mainstream looked down upon. Geeks were used to being judged and bullied for no good reason–playing D&D or video games instead of sports doesn't make you a lesser person, the people who tried to convince you otherwise were assholes for doing so, and that sort of criticism was pretty much all of the criticism the community faced. Geek culture might not be mainstream yet (though some argue it is), but its gained so much acceptance that this has changed, especially among adults. Some people old enough to drink still try to bully geeks for liking geeky things, but nowadays, many of the "attacks" on the community center on other concerns, some valid, some not, and many come ostensibly from within. I think large segments of the community years ago learned to respond to bullying by closing ranks, and adopting the attitude that if they like who they are, they shouldn't let the opinions of other bother them. This attitude is empowering, and honestly pretty awesome, if you're talking about dressing up like Tom Baker's Doctor, or some girl calling you creepy because "Eww, some geek wants to buy me a drink." It's disappointing and downright self-destructive when we're talking about unwanted groping, or even certain harmful, but non criminal, behaviors.
I've seen parallels in the MMA-fan community (far less than in the MMA-practitioner community.) Wannabe jock is used to bullying less aggressive guys. Wannabe jock is criticized for some flaw in their community. Wannabe jock reverts to form responds to criticism by bullying the whiny pussies who buy into feminist crap because its the only way they think they'll get laid and they probably don't even lift.
@Grifter Ah I made a slight msitake, 40% was WoW players, 30% was CoD players http://gamercrave.com/whos-playing-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-women/762/
I did actually track down the Nielsen survey that the numbers came from and they seemed to match up to this article. Can't find the link to that again but it was from the 2010 Video game usage survey.
Wow.
I think you've proved your thesis, Ken.
@ Walter and Ken
I don't think he has. He's started one hell of an argument, and while I can't be sure of every post in a very large thread, it has been remarkably civil. There have been the usual ad hominems and so on, but I can't think of a 400+ post thread I've ever seen anywhere conducted so mildly in response to an accusation of rabid, frothing rage. While I don't agree with everything Pollock says, he's kept his head as far as I can see. We had some one-off posters probably cross-linked, but even they weren't flaming.
In fact, I think on the whole, this thread gives the lie to the premise that men can't discuss the issue in a calm and reasoned manner. Is there anger? Yes, and a justifiable amount. Is it the raging torrent of internet bile Ken set us up for? Not so much.
As a complete aside, I'm rather amused at the amount of energy that has been poured into this conversation (and both sides) of the pros and cons of the word "creeper". Part of me thinks that at least half of the comments here have been attacking or defending its use.
If I was a sociologist, I could probably build a thesis over that.
"I think that's because "I was drunk" is not an excuse for anything."
Tell that to former Senator Bob Packwood.
Related: Scalzi says he won't go to conventions lacking harassment policies.
@Christina
In some cases, believe it or not, yes. It goes back to the reason why women at cons are more likely to be approached and hit on than outside the con, because a mutual and neutral social ground gives a) subjects to talk about and b) an excuse to linger and talk without feeling awkward. By asking about getting a drink/food, you're signalling that for the next few minutes you would like to spend time in a social context with someone in a manner conducive to conversation. For some people this is a lot easier (and the rejection thereof) is a lot easier than starting the conversation in the first place (and having that conversation rejected).
That is to say, let's presume Con Girl who has been approached quite a few times today and isn't interested / has a boyfriend / whatever. Now let's take low self esteem Con Guy who approaches. Option A is that he starts up a conversation about something, Con Girl now has to extract herself from the conversation in some way, and usually it will be something like "I've got other things to do" or "Sorry, I'm busy". The problem is, for Con Guy, that reads like "You're not someone I would be interested in" (even if that wasn't the intent, remember we've already said part of communication is what the other side hears). In short the rejection feels like a rejection of self. Option B is that Con Guy offers to get drink/coffee/lunch, now usually the way Con Girl turns this down is to say "Not thirsty/hungry" or maybe even still "I'm busy" but mentally for Con Guy this is a rejection of the specific offer, not necessarily the Con Guy himself. It's a safer question in terms of damage to ego.
Note that this isn't to suggest that Con Girl has an responsibility to Con Guy's self esteem, merely to explain how for a socially awkward person, an invitation to a socially neutral activity can be safer feeling than simply starting a conversation. In short, asking about drinks/lunch is a round about and self esteem protective way of asking "Would you like to have a conversation"
@DRS
They generally do it about as well as they handle interactions with the opposite sex. Have you never noticed the high correlation with social awkwardness and lousy/dead end type jobs? That's because professional success as you move beyond cashier and line level work requires social skills. This is already an acknowledged phenomenon, it's why colleges have job centers that teach you blindingly obvious things like "shower and put on dress pants and a dress shirt for an interview", that's why the internet is full of self help articles on how to write a resume and how to conduct yourself at an interview.
I worked in computer retail. I worked with plenty of socially awkward people who were miserable failures at even simple retail sales because they had no social skills at all. They literally would shut down if a young female approached them, or worse they would hit on clients because they had no concept of professional boundaries. This is a real problem for these people. I'm really surprised you've never noticed this.
@ChrisTS
See the conversation Christina and I had just above. It is entirely possible for a male and female to have a non sexual interaction, and it's entirely possible for a male to initiate said interaction in a way that is interpreted as a sexual overture simply due to cultural differences. Not everyone coming up to you to start a conversation is looking for sex. So perhaps another part of the problem is hypersensitivity to being picked up?
But further, allow me to posit that people go to gatherings of other like minded people in order to meet like minded people. Sure, that may not be your particular reason for being there, but it should be natural to expect that to be a reason for at least a non insignificant portion of the attendees. But again, please see above regarding not every interaction being sexual.
@Canonical
It doesn't. But unless there is an explicit rule against conversing with strangers, absent any particular cues from you that you're not interested in any social contact, you're going to be socially contacted. And sorry to say but simply sitting in a corner reading a book is not a strong enough signal, especially in an environment when everyone is doing so. Admittedly competitions are different social rules from cons, but I've never been to a competition where it was all business and no socialization. Maybe chess competitions are different?
@azteclady
The problem is here we're talking about two different things again. I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread argue that physical contact absent positive consent is OK. In fact, just to be perfectly clear, I'll state that my position is that no one has any right whatsoever to touch you in any way absent your positive consent. The problem is, in this same discussion, we're equating walking up to someone and starting a conversation with touching. One can't get positive consent before trying to start a conversation, and that's where the concern is.
@Mark
Admittedly it's a crappy solution but it's also probably the only one likely to work. Again, operating on the assumption that we all agree no one has a right to touch you absent positive consent from you, we're left with conversation / pickup attempts. Frankly a con gathering is a social event, even if you're a hermit chances are you went to the con to interact with other people in some form or another. As a result, if you don't want to be social at the social event, it sort of is incumbent on you to signal that to other people.
We already have something similar to that in some cons. Referencing "glomping" again from up thread, many cons have implemented a policy of requiring that attendees where a special pin / lanyard / other signal indicating a willingness to be "glomped". Admittedly, the "I don't want social interaction" is different in that it's a denial signal rather than a consent signal, but the other option is to have the default rule be "No talking to strangers without the "I want to be social" tag" and that seems like that would be a great detriment to the social nature of a con.
@Nate
There is a slight problem with this. I referenced this earlier with regards to the perceived "double standard", but it essentially boils down to "How men want women to treat them is different from how women want men to treat them". Yes in general we have very similar ideas, but for a lot of these socially awkward males, a woman coming up to them to initiate a conversation / social invitation or yes even a pickup is exactly what they want. On the other hand, we can see clearly this is often not what the female attendees want. This is compounded by even if we all agree that we wouldn't want 100 people interrupting us all day long, each individual person has no way of knowing how frequently you've been interrupted or even if you've ever been interrupted at all. I have to imagine there is not an insignificant number of geek girls who are also painfully shy and overlooked.
"OK if we loop back for a minute?"
Sure.
"I can't simply take out and brandish the pistol that I'll be packing"
This is a weapons-free con. We're going to have to ask you to leave.
"It has to be final, so not capable of being construed as "not now" or "not at the moment.""
Well, it doesn't HAVE to be. "Not now" means "not now" which also means "try again later". If you want him to try again later, say "not now", and if you don't want him to try again later, say "no". See how we leave that choice up to you? It's just that we'll hold you to whichever of those you choose.
"Have you met my husband, the rugby-playing pathologically jealous six-foot four bloke with organised crime connections who's standing two feet behind your left ear, waving his own pistol and standing over a spade, a sack, a tarpaulin, several industrial grade meat cleavers and a five-gallon drum of cleaning fluid?"
To be honest, I'm a little concerned for your safety. And why are you on the polyamory panel, again?
"So, will this do as a sufficient "no" to unwanted interaction with people at cons, which will leave both parties safer, clearer and happy in the fact that communication has been achieved without possibility of understanding?"
That's GOT to be a typo. In any case, I edited what follows a little bit for length:
"No."
As a disinterested third-party to this interaction, what, if anything should I have done? You've clearly identified your husband standing only a few feet away, and for some reason he is not taking action nor, apparently, have you actually called for his aid. If you do not want his aid, as a person committed to your safety, may I safely conclude that aid or assistance is neither wanted nor appreciated? In fact, should I worry that in even attempting to come to your aid, I may incur the wrath of the pathologically jealous husband?
"Creep" is the female equivalent of "crazy" as used by males; a generally unfalsifiable disqualifier for a member of the opposite sex they find unappealing.
@James Pollock
I was not asking for help, but whether the above quoted section constituted – in the light of the advice given above – an example of a sufficiently unequivocal "no" to the offender in question to absolve me of the charge of having not made myself clear.
You – among others – seemed to think that it was the duty of a person in such circumstances to give such an unequivocal "no" or be held responsible not merely for their own harassment but that of any subsequent person the harasser went on to harass. I put the example in question forward as a synthesis of suggestions as to what did and did not amount to a proper "no". Does it qualify?
I'm sorry to hear about the weapons-free convention policy, since I noted from @Jeremy above (yesterday, 12.13 or thereabouts) that
apologies – HTML fail.
What @Jeremy said was "If women are having a problem with physical assault, well then frankly they should go buy a pistol, or surrender their "you go, girl" card."
The cited portion was my conclusion, not his words.
"Related: Scalzi says he won't go to conventions lacking harassment policies."
While I agree that cons should have a policy and that policy should encompass the things he wants, the smug and pompous WAY he says it pushes me strongly in the other direction.
@legionseagle
I think you're misinterpreting here. What is being said is not that you are responsible for harassment, but that you are responsible for your own communication and the results thereof. That's why we're saying an unequivocal "No" is better than some social hinting. The fact is, as we've already established both in regards to being a creep ("Communication is what the other person hears") and even within this thread itself (See the discussion between myself and Christina above where our mutual example was confounded by simple differences in social culture) that if you don't explicitly say what you mean, it's very easy to be misinterpreted.
So if you say "Not right now" and said person tries again later, they're responsible for their decision to try again later, but you're responsible for replying in a manner which did not accurately convey your true meaning which was "Not ever"
Wow, I've tried to catch up on all the comments, but I think I'm out.
I guess here's my thoughts in case anyone cares:
1. I can understand being afraid of being falsely accused of sexual harassment. I agree that having this happen to you would suck. But there *is* an investigation process, from what I have seen (correct me if I'm wrong–but give me actual evidence, not anecdotes, because I really do want to know if I'm wrong but I find it hard to trust something that doesn't have evidence attached), it's *not* guilty until proven innocent. One person who has worked in con security for years came to the thread and said what he's likely to do if someone gives an anonymous report: follow up on it, get the other person's side, make a judgement call as to what needs to happen. He mentioned one circumstance in which he would recommend that the accused stay away from the accuser, and that is in the case of the accused immediately displaying a hostile attitude which is out of proportion to the accusation. I would recommend this: if someone in security comes to you and says, "Anonymous woman says you did this behavior and it made her uncomfortable" say, "Wow, I had no idea it made her feel uncomfortable" (because you didn't), "I'm a little upset that I was reported, because it seems like a reasonable behavior to me" (honest but measured), and "What do I need to do now?" From what he described, that would be the end of the situation. If you behavior was egregious enough by an objective standard, you might get asked not to approach the accuser or you might get asked to leave the con. I think we can all agree that egregious behavior that is judged by a neutral third party to be such needs to be reported and acted upon, so this doesn't seem like much of a problem. If you run into somebody who seems biased against you, ask to speak to another person in con security or to have your case reviewed. You can keep asking if you keep feeling this way, but bear in mind that the more people who look at your case who come to the same conclusion, the less likely it is that it's bias that you're seeing here.
There is a small minority of women who make totally false reports based on nothing. This is a crime. If someone lies to try to get you in jail, report her to the police. Yes, it's stressful, yes it's an injustice. I agree. But this does not mean that reporting sexual harassment should be discouraged because some people will commit a criminal act sometimes. For one thing, those people will still make a report whether you discourage them or not. For another, you're trading one form of injustice for another by doing this. Is it really fair to insist that large numbers of women who are assaulted shouldn't be allowed to report because a tiny minority misuse the system? Seems like BS to me. Sorry if that upsets you, and sorry if you have run afoul of this before. You have my sympathy for that, but I'm not participating in dismantling sexual harassment reporting because of that.
So don't push back against sexual harassment reporting becoming mainstream. It protects both you and women who are assaulted. It gives a channel for victims of abuse to get justice. It's a good thing.
2. I can also get being afraid of getting labeled a creeper by large groups of women. I have a harder time believing that this is as big as problem as the fear it elicits, because women have a sense of proportion too. If I hear something that sounds relatively innocuous to me, I'm allowed to think, "Clearly she was upset by it, but it seems innocuous. I'm fine with serving as a buffer between him and her if needed, but I really doubt anybody else is at risk." It's likely that no matter how many other women she tells. The vast majority of them will have the same reaction. Ditto for the internet. Actually, I would imagine the internet would react against the accuser for trying to stir up drama. See: Donglegate. (And from another perspective.) Also important when read this is the fact that the PyCon Code of Conduct is being explicitly revised to make sure that the situation where one person decides to publicly shame someone before going through the proper channels doesn't happen again. To me, this is what "more speech" looks like.
3. More than likely, if you are socially awkward, when "con harassment" comes up, you're not the one being talked about. See this post. So if you push back against women wanting to change the culture of harassment at cons, what the women in the thread are likely to hear is that you want to make it to where people described in the post can continue to operate exactly as they have been. What you intend is to make sure that socially awkward men don't get criminalized. I get that this is important to you. Before you do this, make sure you are actually talking about what she is talking about. Make it clear what it is, exactly, that you are saying.
The reason why I make this request is because when someone is talking about wanting to make criminal behavior less prevalent, that's important. It's way more important than you accidentally derailing the conversation to get your thoughts about your issue in. I'm not saying you can't talk about your issue, but doesn't it seem kind of silly to come to a thread where women are talking about their experiences of actual sexual violence and say, "That's a problem, but lemme tell you. I've got this problem too, and it's that I'm afraid of being on the receiving end of accusations that have nothing to do with me"? By doing this, you attempt to turn a conversation that is about keeping people from becoming victims of crimes into your own personal vent thread about your anxieties, without ever acknowledging the original point of the thread. That's rude and counterproductive. If the people in the thread realize that you're talking about two separate things, you're going to get the brush-off; if they don't, it basically looks like you're advocating for sexual battery. Neither is a good outcome. Don't do this, please.
In turn, in the future when I'm talking about "creepiness," I will say, "This is what I mean by creepy" and describe what I'm talking about. We can have a discussion where we come to a consensus about what is at issue. I do refuse to define "creepy" as "this list of behaviors" because of the very important point made in the link above (here's another link in case you want to look):
Predators are good at avoiding running afoul of explicit rules. They are good at finding victims who are too scared to speak about being violated. They are good at using excuses that allow socially awkward men to think of them as "one of us" instead of as "someone who sexually assaulted a woman." If I define "creepy" as being 10 things that should never, ever be done, the predator will simply switch to the 11th thing that I never thought about. If defining creepy sharply actually helped with anything, then I wouldn't be pushing back against it. But, I don't think it does. See point #1 about the likely outcome of a scenario in which someone is accused by an accuser who is oversensitive. I really don't believe there's as much of a danger as you think there is of actual repercussions against you for being socially awkward. Feel free to try to change my mind about this, but without some kind of proof I'm not likely to.
4. What I really, really do not get is the outrage over women getting to make their own choices about what they think of guys who approach them in ways they don't like. If a woman doesn't like you because of how you approached her, you struck out with that woman. It happens.
If you strike out with a lot of women, that's also sad. I get this on a visceral level. I got called things like "queen of the freak shows" when I was younger; I was painfully socially awkward and got rejected many times myself. I had one boyfriend when I was in the 7th grade, and he was a gay dude who wanted to reassure his mom that he wasn't gay. (It didn't work. And I was pretty upset when the truth came out. Thanks, Chaz!)
I didn't have another boyfriend until I met my husband at a magnet school we were both attending. We were both painfully socially awkward with one another, and I had a lot of hangups I had to get over because I'd been the victim of sexual violence in the past. I cringe thinking about our early courtship. But it worked out, we changed each other in good ways and we've been married for six years. Protip: we started out as friends and treated each other as friends one of us got up the nerve to ask for a date. (Hilariously, his friends tied him down and literally forced him to ask me out; he called me and was so nervous he dropped and broke the phone and had to call back. I had been planning to ask him out the next day and had the entire conversation planned out to the letter. Hence wanting to wait until exactly the right time. Ahhh, social awkwardness.) Additional protip: if you can't work up the nerve to ask someone out on a date, that is something you need to work on and only you can do that work. If you're lucky, maybe a woman you're interested in will ask you out. I'm actually hoping this becomes more of a thing because right now, the onus is generally on the man to make the first move. That's shitty, and something that I think should be changed. That being said, women sharing the onus does not mean women shouldering the onus. Which is why you need to learn this skill anyway.
But back on topic: it would be nice if social interactions could be clear-cut. But it's not going to happen. Sometimes people just don't "click" and sometimes something about your approach exacerbates this effect. Chances are good that, if she finds you "creepy," she both wasn't attracted to you and she didn't like some specific things you said or did to talk with her or interact with her. There is one-half of the equation here that you can change. If you're unsure of what you did to be creepy, you might try asking a question on the internet about the encounter. If the internet doesn't point to a specific action you took that was objectively creepy, it could be body language (did you lean in close? Stare at her cleavage?) or it could be circumstances (i.e. you approached her in an elevator at 4 A.M.). Pay attention to what your body is doing in relation to hers and pay attention to how you are approaching her. When in doubt, give her plenty of space and ask her in a neutral, safe location. Here are some more tips on how to approach–and there are lots of other articles written on the subject that are just a google away.
Women do tend to bring a lot of baggage to conversations such as this, but bear in mind that it's because a LOT of women (and I do mean a lot) have been sexually assaulted. When you are sexually assaulted, you become hyper-vigilant. It's not fair to you, but imagine how unfair it is to her that she has to evaluate each situation in light of this. Also, asking her *not* to bring this baggage is asking for her not to attend to her personal safety so that you can have an easier time getting a date. This is not a reasonable request. It is reasonable for women to ask that you try not to make them feel afraid, even if that means you have to be more aware of how you approach. Suck it up.
Of course, it could be that she's just oversensitive and overreacted to you. Again, this does not seem like a fundamental injustice. She didn't like you. If she reports you for harassment, it's likely nothing bad will happen to you anyway (see point #1). Move on to the next woman.
5. Blaming victims of rape for not reporting is a scummy thing to do. I don't care how you try to frame it. It's not cool. There are a lot of different reasons why victims of rape don't report, and you need to educate yourself on these. (The man who raped me when I was ten never served a day of jail time, for example, despite being found guilty. Great deterrent, right?) Either way, it's absolutely the fault of the rapist when he (or she) rapes. I'm not going to change my mind on this, so don't even try. James Pollock was being a scummy asshole when he did this, end of topic.
So you are saying that it is better (that is, safer for me ) in such circumstances to say, "Fuck off, no, and that means never until the heat death of the universe" than to attempt to soften it in any manner?
@TM You're still putting the burden for avoiding harassment on the victim. Most women are socialized from an early age to avoid confrontation, and studies have shown that women are just as likely to be socially punished for being to aggressive in setting boundaries. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't attitude. If a lady doesn't violate social conventions by giving you a firm no, she's responsible for not preventing her future harassment. If she uses the direct language you ask for she is going to likely be labeled a "bitch" who "can't take a joke". If she's lucky that is, she also is increasing her risk of violence. Creeper behavior at it's core is a failure to respect normal social boundaries. Now, there certainly are tons of guys out there who are socially awkward, I used to be one. But a lady has no way of knowing if that boundary crossing behavior is the result of awkwardness or if it indicated a willingness to cross other boundaries into violence. Men are socialized to be direct and aggressive, women are socialized to be indirect and gentile. Instead of putting the onus on women to protect themselves maybe it's more fair to put the burden on men to learn the appropriate social behavior.
"I was not asking for help, but whether the above quoted section constituted – in the light of the advice given above – an example of a sufficiently unequivocal "no" to the offender in question to absolve me of the charge of having not made myself clear."
Well, as I am neither harasser nor harrassed, my opinion can only cover third-party interaction. In other words, under what circumstances are you entitled to expect my intervention? If you tell a guy "no" and he keeps trying, you are wronged and and a request for my assistance is likely forthcoming. If you tell a guy "maybe" and he keeps trying, you have not been wronged, and my assistance in probably not forthcoming.
Of course, if you aren't asking for my assistance, then you may freely ignore ANY input from me.
"You – among others – seemed to think that it was the duty of a person in such circumstances to give such an unequivocal "no" or be held responsible not merely for their own harassment but that of any subsequent person the harasser went on to harass."
Not really, no. If they is so far over the line that he really should be removed from the event, but you choose to keep silent because, say, you've have waste at least half-an-hour explaining things to event security, and you'd rather be doing something else, that's your choice, and in that narrow type of case, yes, you'd have a sliver of responsibility for whoever it was that got mistreated by this person after he could/would/should have been ejected. (He's responsible for his action, and you're responsible for your (in)action.)
"I put the example in question forward as a synthesis of suggestions as to what did and did not amount to a proper "no". Does it qualify?"
Well, no. That's why I edited it down to a simpler, more effective version. Is it so hard to say "no" if you mean "no"? Is it too much to ask?
"Clearly this means that women who object to being physically assaulted should not venture into spaces where their pistols may not follow."
It's certainly something to think about. I'm fairly sure everybody who obtains a carry permit and carries for their personal safety has to think about it whenever they consider entering a location where they may not carry. As far as I know, airliners are not known for being grope-fests, despite the close quarters. Public schools, on the other hand, vary widely.
On the plus side, the weapons-free policy ALSO applies to him, so he wasn't allowed to bring his Kenner lightsaber with realistic sounds to complete his Jedi costume, so there is that, at least.
@James Pollock
"As far as I know, airliners are not known for being grope-fests, despite the close quarters."
Ah, bless. How wonderful to be able to have that blissful innocence about the world.
Just found this and thought I'd share: one congoer came up with the idea of handing out red and yellow cards to people who creep. This is one way of non-confontationally informing someone that they've crossed a boundary.
(There are also green cards that say "thanks for behaving respectfully")
@James Pollack The miscommunication is that "maybe" usually means know if you're obeying normal social convention. You're focusing specifically on the stated meaning and ignoring the cultural subtext.
" Is it so hard to say "no" if you mean "no"? Is it too much to ask?" Yes it is. Women are taught to express rejection indirectly. A direct "no" is more likely to trigger social consequences because it is "bitchy" mannish" behavior unbecoming a lady. As a man it is very hard to understand this. As a mental exercise imagine you're being hit on by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and you're not interested. You also know that 1 in six men have been sexually assaulted by professional wrestlers. It would be easy to just say "no", right?
Disclaimer: The Rock seems pretty cool and I'm pretty sure most professional wrestlers are decent human beings.
@legionseagle
"So you are saying that it is better (that is, safer for me ) in such circumstances to say, "Fuck off, no, and that means never until the heat death of the universe" than to attempt to soften it in any manner?"
You do understand that attempts to "soften" are OFTEN misconstrued, by EVERYBODY, regardless of gender or circumstance, and that that's a risk you take when you say something like "I'm busy right now" rather than "Not interested"?
*Which doesn't justify crossing the line whatsoever. But, as has been noted, the line has been conflated with "awkward social interaction"; no one who can be taken seriously takes issue with truly crossing the line. It's the "awkward interaction" part, where "Ugh, he should have known "I'm busy right now" meant I have no interest ever, therefore he's as bad as a groper" is treated as a correct view of behavior, that the issue is truly taken with.
@Grifter Actually, apparently not, according to people who've carried out research on the topic. On the other hand, explicit verbal refusals being interpreted as hostile acts and causes of escalation of any aggression inherent in the situation is a known problem (same research as in link).
@sorrykb
That is an EXCELLENT point, and one which I acknowledge and agree with wholeheartedly. I'm surprised it took that long to express on this board.
Yes, saying "surrender your you go girl card" was mean spirited.
Yet it is no different than telling a man to "man up" when anything bad happens to him. It's effectively the same "taunt". However, it is allowed when speaking to guys, and yet somehow not allowed to be expected of the girls to take responsibility for their own protection or surrender autonomy.
When guys are taunted socially by men and women, we tell them to suck up and deal with it.
When girls are taunted socially by men, we circle the wagons and protect them even though they want to be treated as equals and what they were exposed to was no different than what any guy in the same situation might be exposed to.
Words hurt, but if I can take it and we're equals, then you can take it.
@ Soylent
Again allow me to state up front so that we are clear. You have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to not be touched by ANY PERSON absent your POSITIVE CONSENT. The rest of this post is as regards to non physical behaviors.
A) If early social conditioning of young women to not set explicit boundaries is causing them to be harassed, then the logical solution is to start telling young women to set explicit boundaries. BTW, anyone who tells another person not to set explicit boundaries is a jerk who should be ignored. You have a right to your own body and your own boundaries and you're the only person you can ever expect to define and defend those boundaries so you better set them.
B) I realize that the young woman in question does not have a way of knowing whether the behavior creeping her out is a result of social awkwardness or malicious intent. That is why it is vitally important that she starts by assuming good intent and is explicit and clear in communicating her boundary, and follows up immediately and definitively if that boundary is not respected. Yes, this may mean that some people will call her names or otherwise speak poorly of her. Such is life, but she will at least not be harassed, which I'm sure we can agree is the bigger problem.
C) It is absolutely the responsibility of the communicator to communicate clearly. Blame (and at times responsibility) is not a zero-sum game. I can place full blame on a harasser for their harassing behavior while simultaneously acknowledging that the harassed has not clearly communicated their boundary. In other words, the guy who stalks a girl around the con because he's deliberately taking the literal interpretation of "Not right now" as opposed to taking the hint that 3 days of "Not right now" means not ever? Totally 100% to blame for being a harassing creepy stalker, should have been kicked out of the con long before. The poor harassed girl, also to blame for failure to communicate her boundary clearer and failure to report the behavior to the con staff when her communications were being ignored. This does not absolve the harasser of any blame at all. In fact, it is only be acknowledging that blame is not zero-sum that we can ever say that someone has an absolute right to not be harassed. By saying that blame is zero-sum, we are implicitly saying that there is some combination of actions taken by the harassed which can reduce the culpability of the harasser for their own actions. I do not believe there is any such set of actions, therefore I can only conclude that blame is not zero-sum.
Very often the perpetrators are Nice Guys, who think they are owed sex if they are "nice" to women. (except being "nice" if often super creepy) and science fiction has coddled this belief. After all how often is the hero a shy, awkward nerd who gets the hot chick at the end?
@TM I find it difficult to take your comment seriously because of this: "That is why it is vitally important that she starts by assuming good intent and is explicit and clear in communicating her boundary, and follows up immediately and definitively if that boundary is not respected. Yes, this may mean that some people will call her names or otherwise speak poorly of her. Such is life, but she will at least not be harassed, which I'm sure we can agree is the bigger problem."
This makes the following assumptions:
a) it is safer to assume good intent than evil intent. Actually, I disagree with this in general; I'd express it as "it's best to hope for good intent but to prepare for all eventualities, including foreseeable worst case scenarios." That's why it is not usually safer, for example, for children to be taught that most adults are benign and they should be happy to get into cars with strangers, even though as a matter of fact most adults are benign and it probably would be safe in the vast majority of cases.
b) You assume that the risk of being assertive about boundaries is the risk of "being thought poorly of". That's quite wrong; the risk in asserting boundaries can involve anything from physical violence to losing one's job, which is why reporting harassment in the workplace is such a fraught issue.
c) You assume that asserting boundaries verbally and clearly will work. This in turn has the hidden assumption that the person transgressing those boundaries is i) acting in good faith; and ii) not doing it purely in order to provoke a reaction. Bitter experience suggests that this is not often the case.
"there *is* an investigation process, from what I have seen."
That investigation process sometimes entails "Is there a person who fits that description in the vicinity". This is an artifact of the days when most offensive contacts were solved self-help, with only the worst of offenses being reported to con security. Con security is generally not equipped nor intended to provide investigatory work; their job is to resolve situations in the immediate. Do they sometimes under-react? Yes. Do they sometimes over-react? Yes. Do they sometimes do both at the same time? Yes.
"If you behavior was egregious enough by an objective standard, you might get asked not to approach the accuser or you might get asked to leave the con."
Well, "asked to leave the con" means escorted to your hotel room and from there off the premises without recourse. And after that, of course, you might be banned.
"There is a small minority of women who make totally false reports based on nothing. This is a crime."
Not if they don't report it TO POLICE. It is not a crime to make a false report to con security (it might be, and should be, a violation of con policy, but see the discussion regarding investigatory capability above.)
"But this does not mean that reporting sexual harassment should be discouraged because some people will commit a criminal act sometimes."
Absolutely not. People who are harassed absolutely should report it when it happens, as frequently and as loudly as is necessary to be heard. But, women should be even MORE angry at false reporters than are men.
"I can also get being afraid of getting labeled a creeper by large groups of women. I have a harder time believing that this is as big as problem as the fear it elicits"
Are you SURE you want to be attacking other peoples' fear? I ask because you don't seem to like having YOUR fear questioned. Goose, gander.
"Actually, I would imagine the internet would react against the accuser for trying to stir up drama."
I have recent experience that suggests otherwise.
"what the women in the thread are likely to hear is that you want to make it to where people described in the post can continue to operate exactly as they have been."
Perhaps (just perhaps) that is a problem with the listening skills of the women rather than the speaking skills of the men. Most likely, there's plenty of blame to go around, so both ends of the conversation can share some. But if you're going to attack someone for supporting various indefensible acts, you really should make sure they are, in fact, supporting various indefensible acts FIRST.
"I do refuse to define "creepy" as "this list of behaviors""
"Predators are good at avoiding running afoul of explicit rules."
So, if you give them explicit rules, they'll avoid running afoul of them, but you refuse to give them explicit rules? Um, I think I see your problem, now. Wait…
"If I define "creepy" as being 10 things that should never, ever be done, the predator will simply switch to the 11th thing that I never thought about"
So then the next con has a list of *11* verboten things. In the meantime, the original list of 10 things don't get done. Is that not what you want?
Consider the analogy: "don't drive dangerously" (good advice, but bad traffic law, because it's subjective.) So instead, we have a long list of things not to do. Don't change lanes without signaling first. Don't pass on the shoulder. The fact that there are other ways to drive dangerously, and new ones are discovered every day on America's highways and byways, doesn't mean that we shouldn't start by listing specific dangerous-driving behaviors that should be avoided.)
"What I really, really do not get is the outrage over women getting to make their own choices about what they think of guys who approach them in ways they don't like."
Yeah. I not only don't get it, I don't see it. Where is it?
"Blaming victims of rape for not reporting is a scummy thing to do"
Nope. I'm going to hold on to this one. Each and every one of us is responsible for the things we do (or do not do). It's a simple rule and fairly applied.
If you want to say "well, there are REASONS to not report" and "here's why it's not the victim's fault for not reporting", you open the door to rape apologists saying "Well, yeah, rape is wrong, but there are REASONS…" and "here's why it's not the rapists fault. He had a bad childhood. His mama didn't hold him enough. He was a victim himself."
No. No excuses. That is a door that should be kept firmly closed.
Kat, making excuses for wrong behavior OF ANY KIND is bad. You sympathise with victims. I sympathise with victims. But I don't condone wrong behavior. Nope. These are not wrongs of even close to the same magnitude, but BOTH are wrong.
Since you're intent on shooting the messenger, Kat, fire away. You're still wrong. End of topic. Plenty of blame for everybody to get their share.
@Jeremy:
I don't tell men to "man up" when something bad happens to them. Never have. And I've spoken up and taken action in defense of women and men who've been subjected to abuse. So, despite "traditional" attitudes and prevailing culture, I've somehow managed to control my own behavior. Shockingly, it isn't even that difficult.
Now it's your turn. See if you can't modify your own behavior to avoid making bullshit comments implying that no unarmed woman can complain about being sexually assaulted.
"If she uses the direct language you ask for she is going to likely be labeled a "bitch" who "can't take a joke". "
Not by people whose opinion she respects.
@legionseagle:
Gee, I see your sarcasm, and raise you your biases. That article was wholly about sexual pressure. The interactions we're talking about and that I'm at least slightly defending aren't. Conversation between the sexes is not necessarily sexual pressure.
Further "[q]uite simply, that is not how refusals are normatively done" may be true. But normative refusals, if taken at face value rather than "interpreted", don't result in a charge of being a "creeper" if misunderstood. If one couple invites another couple over for standard, non-orgy dinner, and the first couple refuses but couches it in "gee, I'd like to" terms, people don't accuse the second couple of wrongdoing if they ask again down the line. But a single dude asking a single chick something similar (NOT any kind of "sit on my face" nonsense) is considered qualitatively different.
In fact, there's a clear presumption that sexual conversation is different than non-sexual conversation…but then this source goes on about sexual conversation alone, focusing on rape and sexual propositions. Let me be clear: that is not the type of behavior I'm defending whatsoever. It is repugnant and monstrous and unacceptable.
I'm just saying, like a couple who "doesn't get the hint", a dude who "doesn't get the hint" while still in the "regular conversation" phase is NOT a sexual predator.
I'll give it a more thorough read, since it does include more than one study…but no one here's seriously justifying "Hey baby, wanna have sex?" and repeated similar concepts in the face of couched no's.
However, that's not the entirety of the behavior that's identified as problematic. What about those circumstances where someone hasn't even reached the propositional stage yet IF EVER? I was under the impression THAT was what we were talking about. I know I, solely because I'm male, have been accused of "hitting on" women that I was LITERALLY just talking to with no romantic or sexual aspirations of any kind whatsoever. I'm happily married and have no interest in hitting on another woman; as far as I'm concerned, everyone may as well be gender-neutral in my eyes. I don't talk in or use sexual terms or innuendo. Yet there seems to be some kind of presumption I MUST be talking about sex, that MUST be my end goal, and that if I don't get an early hint, I'm therefore some kind of sexual predator. The situation becomes even murkier when we're talking about someone who does have at least theoretical sexual interest, but is just conversing.
There is no defense for truly repugnant behavior. But non-repugnant behavior gets lumped in as well, which has been my point all along.
@sorrykb
That's an extraordinarily wild imagination you have there. I implied no such thing.
It is easy to say you've never treated men and women differently when they are confronted with adversity, much harder to prove. Frankly I don't believe your initial claim.
"Women are taught to express rejection indirectly."
Men are taught it's OK to pursue until told "no".
"As a mental exercise imagine you're being hit on by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and you're not interested. You also know that 1 in six men have been sexually assaulted by professional wrestlers. It would be easy to just say "no", right?"
Yeah, it would be. I say what I think even when it has consequences. Then again, I don't care if people think I'm "mannish".
"That's why it is not usually safer, for example, for children to be taught that most adults are benign "
Actually, it IS usually safer to teach children that most adults are benign. That way, if they need assistance of some kind and parents are unavailable, they'll be able to ask for assistance.
Alas, most attacks on children come from sources the parents trusted.
@Jeremy. Would you care to clarify what you meant, then, by "If women are having a problem with physical assault, well then frankly they should go buy a pistol, or surrender their 'you go, girl' card."?
And on the other point, you're free, of course, to disbelieve me.
I've been a bit more fair with my assumptions about you. I have called you an asshole (based on what you've written here), but not a liar.
@ legionseagle
To my knowledge, we are still talking about con interactions specifically and geek culture in general. To my knowledge, we have not changed our frame of reference to "back alleys at night". Therefore, I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that at any given con, the intent of most of the people you interact with is not malicious, that it is indeed safe to establish personal boundaries and you will not be assaulted or lose your job for doing so and that most people who cross your boundaries for the first time are doing so unintentionally.
This is yet another reason why there is so much anger surrounding this issue. A con is not a gang rape or mass sexual assault waiting to happen. It isn't a place where you are at risk of losing a job (unless you happen to be making jokes near someone who doesn't want to communicate their boundaries who also has a popular twitter account and a cell phone…). Interactions between people at cons are not analogous to strange adults offering candy to children if they get into the windowless van. We are explicitly talking about cons, and even further explicitly talking about non physical contact between two mutual attendees of the con. The fact that the tone of these sorts of discussions treats that as akin to an imminent threat of sexual assault is exactly why there is anger about this. It is truly insulting and offensive that you would paint so many people so broadly based on the actions of a few.
Here's a tip:
If you're unsure of whether a woman is actually saying "later" but really means "never," try saying something like, "Oh. Well, if you're interested in later, here's how to reach me, I'd love to get together sometime. If not, that's fine too. Have a great one!" Move on to next woman. If she wants you to stay, she'll say so. If she wants to get together, she'll take the next step.
Basically, put the ball back in her court.
There are a lot of different solutions that could solve the problems a bunch of people here are talking about WITHOUT reinforcing a harmful status quo.
"science fiction has coddled this belief. After all how often is the hero a shy, awkward nerd who gets the hot chick at the end?"
I'm having trouble coming up with any off the top of my head. It doesn't help that most of the SF I like was shaped by Campbell's "capable man" preference… he got the girl at the end, after treating her with respect for the whole story, but he was a strong, capable man from the start. Clarissa MacDougall was no pushover. Paul Atreides winds up with Irulan, but that's a political marriage. And David Bowman not only does NOT get the girl, he turns into a giant space baby.
If anything, I'd say "the nice guy gets the girl in the end" is more characteristic of the Western genre.
"If you're unsure of whether a woman is actually saying "later" but really means "never," try saying something like, "Oh. Well, if you're interested in later, here's how to reach me, I'd love to get together sometime. If not, that's fine too. Have a great one!" Move on to next woman. If she wants you to stay, she'll say so. If she wants to get together, she'll take the next step."
Right. She WON'T lose interest as soon as she sees you moving on to hit on another woman. Instead, she'll say "Yes, yes, THAT'S the sort of man I'd rather date!"
@kat
Sure, you and I know this, but again we're talking about people with general social awkwardness. Chances are it took them a lot of effort just to work up the nerve to open their mouth and talk. Cooly handling the rejection and turning it around to put it in the girls court is probably a bit outside their normal comfort zone.
Also, don't you think it's creepy to be offering your number to random strangers that you don't know after they've already rejected you? Remember, we're talking about the scenario where "not right now" means "not ever", so it seems like it would be just as pushy and creepy to force your contact information on the person.
*looks at the # of comments*
Holy hell.
I think that alone proves your point, Ken.
@James Pollock: I'm assuming that there would be a cool-down period, where the person in question would take a moment, stop, have a coke, etc. rather than go down the list like a conga line. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that, since we're talking about people who clearly have no idea of what is acceptable and not acceptable and can't figure it out for themselves.
But again: if you strike out with one woman, it's not some inherent injustice. It happens. Deal with it like an adult.
That is something they need to learn and it is not up to women to teach it to them.
Phone number probably WOULD be too much. But "I'm here on Wednesdays" is not. Neither is "I'm going to be hanging out in that room over there for the next few hours." That's why I said "here's how to find me" not "give her your phone number."
The rules lawyering is a bit ridiculous. If you're rejected by someone it's not the end of the world. If she's upset that you gave her a phone number, well then she's upset. You guys are not going to hit it off. It's not the end of the world.
@Kat
I didn't say it was the responsibility of the women to teach that technique. I did say it was their responsibility to communicate their intentions clearly. If you mean "No not ever" then say "No not ever" not "No not now".
I also didn't say rejection was the end of the world. What I did say was that we are again talking about socially awkward people, and that was why you should assume non malicious behavior until proven otherwise.
Also, and again this might be different social contexts growing up, but as I was raised, pressing the conversation after a rejection is creepy regardless, whether it's a phone number or "oh, well if you change your mind, I'll be over there" so again social dynamics are hard. They're made much easier by clear communication.
JRM, to Mrs. JRM: So to oversimplify, there's this problem at atheist conventions where there are self-described feminists on one side, who think if a man ever hits on anyone he's probably a rapist, and the MRA people – and I think MRA stands for Men's Rights Assholes, but I'm not totally sure – who think any complaint about any man is a sign of pouty weakness and the complainers should be shunned.
Mrs. JRM: So, it's like our marriage.
JRM: Yes, except in the convention case, *both* sides are wrong.
Mrs. JRM: Zing!
@TM
"Admittedly it's a crappy solution but it's also probably the only one likely to work."
So you believe a sign that says "don't hit on me, k?" is "the only one (solution) that is likely to work"? Ok. Then I offer the same suggestion I offered Mr. Pollock.
Try it yourself and see what happens.
Seriously.
To make it absolutely clear: what I object to is the idea that the status quo is acceptable and should be strengthened because there are some guys out there who can't handle rejection. If you can't handle rejection, you're in for a rough life, but that is something that you have to grow past. It's not okay to say "well, we can't talk about harassment because guys are extremely lonely and they might accidentally harass." If you're accidentally harassing, then you need to learn how to not accidentally harass. You need to take steps to learn, not expect that it be given to you on a golden platter by the people you made uncomfortable.
FYI: False reports are at a rate of 2% – 6.8% depending on what culture you are talking about. So yes, I do find it hard to believe that this rate justifies dismantling or weakening the entire reporting system. I AM sorry to anybody who has had a false report given on them. I am especially sorry if you didn't get justice for it. You deserved justice. But I'm not willing to swap one injustice for another.
@ James Pollock, I read your response to my long comment, but I did not read a whole lot of proof or a whole lot of engaging with what I actually said. Based on the things you've said in this thread and the fact that I asked for proof and you did not give it, I think I am done talking to you.
Yeah, to be fair, James Pollock has been the major one advocating for this. And I'm pretty much done talking to him.
@TM SFF conventions are a workplace for many people including dealers, authors, agents, editors and aspiring authors. There's a major imbalance (or at least, perceived imbalance) between editors particularly senior editors and well-established authors on the one hand and less established and aspiring authors on the other. This round of discussion was kicked off by an incident where it appears that a senior editor may have been making a practice over many years of exploiting that power differential.
Also, you appear to be convinced that these "socially awkward" people of whom you speak never escalate (or, for that matter, initiate) with unwanted touching, and that everything is strictly non-physical, but the "plausibly deniable grope" is a very common feature of harassment and it's artificial to assume that you can limit discussion of harassment in the way you suggest, because it just doesn't happen that way.
@James Pollock:
"If anything, I'd say "the nice guy gets the girl in the end" is more characteristic of the Western genre."
In Westerns, "the nice guy gets the girl in the end" after the "nice guy" proves he's even more manly than the slimy bastards.
And he doesn't prove his manliness by being nice, but by busting heads and shooting straight….
Quoted for truth, and adding research that backs this up.
Just for the info, Movie Bob over at The Escapist did a piece about geek culture and its current standing in American society as a whole just yesterday.
The piece and, unfortunately, its comment section are pretty interesting when experienced after participating in this thread. For those interested, googling Moviebob and "great power" will get you there.
@ Mark
2 problems:
I've never been attractive enough to be propositioned or even have someone try to initiate a conversation.
I go to cons for social interaction, I explicitly do not want to pre-exclude myself from those who might wish to interact with me.
But ultimately, what I can only guess that you're coyly hinting at is that you don't believe it would work. I have to wonder if you've ever tried it yourself though. I also note you've already admitted you don't have a better idea, so I fail to see what good you're doing by assuming the (already admittedly crappy idea) won't work at all and therefore isn't worth trying. Also note that I mentioned you could do the opposite which is make the default con rule "You can't talk to strangers" and require those that want strangers to talk to them to wear a sign expressing that desire, but I believe that would be harmful to the underlying purpose of the con. Do you feel otherwise?
@Kat
It would be fantastic if you could point out where people have said either that "the status quo is acceptable and in need of no change", or that "we can't talk about harassment because guys are lonely" or where anyone has advocated "dismantling or weakening the entire reporting system". While admittedly I haven't read every post in this long long thread, I have read a vast majority of them, an I really can't recall seeing those statements anywhere.
@Kat and legionseagle
I have never said that I don't think that some of these people escalate. What I have said over and over and over again is that I believe that ANY contact ABSENT POSITIVE CONSENT is WRONG. I have also said it falls into a different category and should be dealt with accordingly. I have also stated time and again that I am explicitly talking about non physical interactions.
Now, I have been very calm and clear through this entire discussion and I have been perfectly willing to be more detailed and clarify any statements that might have been misunderstood (see previous discussion between myself and Christina), but I absolutely refuse to engage in conversation with people who are wilfully ignoring and misrepresenting what I write. If you persist in attacking things I've never said, this conversation between us is over.
@Kat Better luck quoting that research than I had!
But if you want something interesting (if you've not seen it already), here's a piece from a woman who worked as a negotiator with pirates (as her day job) talking about harrassment and SFF cons . I found particularly telling her quote "And if you question how bad it would have to be to make me feel upset? Know that I used to be a pirate negotiator in the maritime industry.
The pirates in the maritime industry were generally a great deal more polite than the creeps in the SFF world. They stuck to terms.
In the SFF world, the nasty that happens is as follows: ‘He was confused,’ rather than “HE JUST TRIED TO HIJACK YOUR SHIP.’"
She reminded me of my late mother. My mum worked in a munitions works in Lancashire during the war, and obviously they were something of a military target. But the things that went on in the shelters during air raids to young female munitions workers were so appalling that often she and some of her colleagues preferred to stay out on the shop floor, taking their chances on the Luftwaffe, rather than be harassed in the shelter.
And when they complained the defence put up was that because the workforce weren't used to working alongside women, obviously they had to give people time to adjust.
"I read your response to my long comment, but I did not read a whole lot of proof"
Oh, good. Now that we've established that if there is no proof, it didn't happen, we can dispense with a LOT of this problem. Since all we have are isolated reports and a whole lot of people who didn't see anything, I think we're done talking to the people doing the reporting.
Just applying your rules, Kat.
"It would be fantastic if you could point out where people have said either that "the status quo is acceptable and in need of no change", or that "we can't talk about harassment because guys are lonely" or where anyone has advocated "dismantling or weakening the entire reporting system". While admittedly I haven't read every post in this long long thread"
I made this complaint, but I didn't offer proof.
@Steven H. Would you say it's fair to summarize many Westerns as "The nice guy gets the girl after the bad guys are all dead or run out of town"?
@TM OK, try being calm and clear about this point, which has been raised several times with you and which you have not (excuse me if I've missed it) addressed: I and others have stated that women have experienced on numerous occasions that the act of setting clear boundaries using unequivocal language is treated by a very significant percentage of the recipients as being a hostile act which justifies verbal and physical aggression. This applies, incidentally, however the strong boundary setting is expressed; I satirically used an extreme version in my scenario above, but even (for example, to people who attempt to engage in conversation with a woman reading on public transport) a response to some question like "What are you reading?" such as "Something I have to read for work. I'm sorry but I'm very busy, I have to concentrate on reading this and I don't have time to talk" WILL (more often than not) be greeted with further questions of greater intrusiveness ("What is it you do? Where do you work?") but that the clear boundary setting will be totally and completely ignored.Further attempts to boundary set, "I said, I don't have time to talk. Please stop bothering me" will provoke rage, and in one case I remember actually having to call the train guard to prevent a man forcibly grabbing my wrist to throw – in that case my mobile phone – away down the carriage.
Please take this statement as true, at least for the sake of this argument. How, therefore, do you suggest women carry out your recommended programme of strong boundary setting given their expectation that they won't be respected?
@TM: Correct me if I am wrong. "Some men feel sad because women don't like how they're approached/talked to. Women should communicate what it is exactly that they want, so that men understand when they have been rejected" is your position. And my response is that research suggests that they do understand it to be a refusal, they just don't care.
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and offer possible solutions, but I'm not going to say "well, I guess the behavior is okay then if he really didn't know; we should make an exception for socially awkward people" because predators use this premise to test potential victims' boundaries, and if they find someone who won't fight back, they then escalate. And yes, this premise of "starting out small and then escalating" is also supported by research. I should also mention that my own personal experience supports this as well. It's called grooming.
It is a much smaller, much less heinous ethical cost to say "sorry, but we're not supporting your grey behavior, learn a new way to interact or GTFO" than it is to say, "sorry, but we're going to support the system that allows predators to operate, good luck bringing it to trial." Is it sad that some men are socially awkward and have difficulty finding people to date? I can get how that would be sad, having been socially awkward myself. But I'm not going to side with them if it means that it strengthens the ability of predators to seek out potential victims and commit crimes against them.
I hope that's clear enough. I've honestly tried not to skip a step or make any logical jumps, but this is a tiring topic to debate for someone who sees this and thinks "wow, this could really have a detrimental effect on my personal safety if it becomes the norm."
@TM
Personally, I would hypothesize that putting up a sign that says "don't hit on me, k?" will not only fail to lower social interaction, but will increase social interaction to a noticeable degree. Granted, those interactions will be uniformly negative, but they will be increased.
"I also note you've already admitted you don't have a better idea, so I fail to see what good you're doing by assuming the (already admittedly crappy idea) won't work at all and therefore isn't worth trying."
No. I admitted that I do not have a suggestion that would – in James P's words "invariably and reliably drive away any social interaction." It looks like all three of us are in agreement that nothing will do that. If you just want a *better* idea than putting up that sign, I can give you hundreds.
1) try Greek yogurt if you haven't. It is delicious.
2) Stand on one foot.
3) Blink. I mean a lot. Just blink like you've never blinked before.
4) Do not put up a sign that says "don't hit on me"
5) Write a letter to your Congressmen to designate your birthday as a national holiday.
6) Stop and smell the roses.
7) Don't put up that sign
8) Don't drop any wooden nickels
I'll just stop there for now.
Finally "isn't worth trying."? I believe I suggested to both you and Mr. Pollock that it was worth trying. I stand by that. You would both learn something and gaining knowledge is a good thing.
"I and others have stated that women have experienced on numerous occasions that the act of setting clear boundaries using unequivocal language is treated by a very significant percentage of the recipients as being a hostile act which justifies verbal and physical aggression."
Very well, continue NOT setting clear boundaries using unequivocal language, and whining about the results. Just don't expect anyone else to step in and do it for you. As a bystander, my functional assumption is that YOU will decide when your boundaries have been reached (or crossed) and if you aren't saying that your boundaries have been reached (or crossed), they haven't been, and I will act accordingly.
If I met someone who thought that 'getting a pistol' is a reasonable defense mechanism, I'd encourage them to think about the consequences of using it in the average venue where harassment is being reported–such as packed trains, crowded cons, and busy streets.
"I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and offer possible solutions, but I'm not going to say "well, I guess the behavior is okay then if he really didn't know; we should make an exception for socially awkward people" because predators use this premise to test potential victims' boundaries, and if they find someone who won't fight back, they then escalate."
What behavior are you referring to?
Attempting to talk to a woman? Looking at her with lust in our hearts? Gazing upon her person at all?
I mean, we're STARTING from the position that all unwanted touching is not OK. We're STARTING from the position that asking repeatedly after being rebuffed (clearly) is not OK.
What OTHER behavior is it that you want us to step in and keep other men from doing, because apparently speaking up "might cause verbal abuse" or make people call you "mannish" (horrors). What the fuck do you want? If you can't (or won't) say, I hereby claim the right to assume the answer is "nothing" and provide for that.
Here's more on why I see this as a status quo issue (fair warning, lots of the text in the link overlaps with what I've linked recently):
Side note about the last thing: I didn't think I had been raped. I happened to say something to my mom about a small thing he did that struck her as "off" and she asked if the man had done anything else that made me feel uncomfortable. It took a lot of conversations for me to share the actual rape with her; I was still scared to talk about it–but I didn't think it was rape. I did share several things that he had done that were boundary violations and escalations, and that was what started the whole process. It wasn't until I reported the incident in question, went through the trial (which was only about the incident; the other boundary violations were not crimes), and had the judge say to the man "what you did was rape" that I realized that I could even call it that. So I did start calling it that, because it seemed important to call it what it was, and I had an official record and everything to back me up.
He also harassed my older sister, but she told him in no uncertain terms to leave her alone and he didn't rape her. But he raped me, because he recognized me through those small (non-criminal) boundary violations as someone who would make a low-risk victim.
I had a lot of therapy afterward in which the specific goal of the therapy was to make sure that I could set clear boundaries in the future and say no when I needed to.
Seriously, a couple of days ago, I started out very supportive of the notion that specific reported behaviors should be attacked as best as possible. After all, it is to the advantage of the non-creepy dudes to get rid of the creepy ones, because a woman who's fending off creeps is less receptive and less fun to be around (justifiably, mostly, but still… ).
But as soon as you say ONE WORD against the orthodoxy, you can be expected to be treated as if you are wholly in support of mistreatment of women. Hint: Driving off the people who start out inclined to support your cause is NOT a good way to achieve your goals.
"women have experienced on numerous occasions that the act of setting clear boundaries using unequivocal language is treated by a very significant percentage of the recipients as being a hostile act which justifies verbal and physical aggression."
vs.
"He also harassed my older sister, but she told him in no uncertain terms to leave her alone and he didn't rape her. But he raped me, because he recognized me through those small (non-criminal) boundary violations as someone who would make a low-risk victim."
?
@legionseagle
I have addressed this multiple times. It's included in "All physical contact absent your positive consent is wrong and should be dealt with accordingly" There is no wavering in that assertion, it means exactly what it says on the tin. By definition, setting boundaries is not justification for physical assault. Also note that verbal aggression is also wrong and uncalled for as I noted you have an absolute right to define and enforce your boundaries.
The same way I suggest men carry out a program of strong boundary setting. Words followed by action followed by violence if necessary. Simply put, you have a right to establish your boundaries, you have a right to enforce those boundaries, use those rights. I realize this can be difficult and even dangerous at times, but it is even more dangerous to allow people to continue to break your boundaries.
@Kat
You're wrong. My position has said nothing about how women should react because men feel a certain way. My position has been that some men behave in awkward and creepy ways which violate your personal boundaries either unintentionally or because they never got that message before. It is therefore in everyone's best interest (both yours and the violators) to not assume maliciousness, but to establish a clear and understandable boundary. After having done so, you are then better able to know if it really was unintentional or if they are being deliberate and should then be dealt with accordingly.
I also did not say you should "make an exception". In fact, I very clearly stated that when someone violates your boundaries you should make that boundary explicitly clear. I did say that if it is their first time violating your boundary that you shouldn't assume malicious intent, but that doesn't mean you make an exception to setting the boundary, it simply means you limit your response to setting a clear boundary and indicating your displeasure at the behavior until it's clear it was malicious.
To use an analogy, if someone steps on your foot at a party, that's technically assault. But chances are they didn't mean it and a simple "Hey watch it" is sufficient to correct the issue. You didn't make an exception to the rule that it was wrong, you simply moderated your response. Now if the same person continues to step on your feet repeatedly, or throw spit balls at you or follow you around making animal noises, then you know they're being malicious and you treat them as you would any malicious person.
Also seriously with the quoting research on predators and grooming? Again we're talking about a con here people. Most of the people you meet on the street or at cons are not sexual predators in waiting, and frankly it's offensive that you treat them that way until they somehow prove to you they're not.
@Mark
Ok, so you're not interested in having a productive conversation about this. Good to know.
James: I don't think that you actually believe this discussion is about, or should be about, you. But you are veering towards acting in a way encouraging that interpretation.
@ Ken
That particular point of Pollock's is a good one. It's not about him, it's about him and me, and legions of men who treat women well and would like to see them treated better by those who don't. But if we attempt to counsel caution lest men be victimized in the rush to ensure that no women are, well, the anger is no less instantaneous and virulent than that which you complained of originally.
Defending normal and healthy male behavior is not rape apology. Attempting to safeguard men from baseless and subjective charges is not misogyny. And trying to categorize it as such does nothing more than exacerbate the virulence problem which was the original complaint.
@Tarrou:
Yes, I can see how your good-faith and thoughtful attempts to make things better have been met with nothing but virulent anger.
@ legionseagle
Your link at 10:54 doesn't work (re the pirate negotiator); can you repost it? It sounds pretty interesting.
Blockquote fail!
Guys, if you don't understand what women mean by "creeper," juts replace it everywhere you see with "low-value beta male orbiter" and everything makes sense.
That comment should be:
Here is what you said earlier:
I just want to note that these are not the same positions. I'm confused here, because women ARE saying no. Women ARE providing boundaries that research suggests men can understand. So I'm not understanding how women are not providing clear enough boundaries. I linked research that says men can understand the boundaries women are stating. Unless you've got something more compelling than just repeating the point that they're really just misunderstood and I'm wrong, I think there's nothing more we can talk about here.
Sexual assault and battery happens to women at cons all the time. That's what started this whole discussion.
I'm trying to be calm here, but this sounds really suspiciously like "assault never happens, therefore don't talk about predators or take action to protect yourself against potential predators," which I've already noted I have strong objections to and why.
@Kat:
It's not ""assault never happens, therefore don't talk about predators or take action to protect yourself against potential predators," "
It's "assault happens. And it's unequivocably bad, and anyone who disagrees is an asshat. But the men who are not assaulters are not responsible for the actions of the men who are, and there is a huge difference between talking to someone, harassing someone, and assaulting them, respectively".
And it has been noted, although perhaps you missed it, that that research is about explicitly sexual coercion. That's not what anyone's defending. The "No's" I think (unless I'm missing it) we're talking about are in response to conversation, not proposition.
This is one subspecies of what I am talking about: the notion that women who don't want to be creeped on are rejecting their creepers because they are looking for wealthy/powerful/assertive "Alphas," because they are cold and calculating. Under this worldview, women are shallow creatures who would giggle and accept it if Mr. Confident Executive came up and sniffed their hair, but only reject such overtures from others because they want to climb.
It's projection, for the most part, by people who don't see others as actual human beings, and assume that the women they are complaining about see the world as a collection of rated objects like they do.
If you choose to set your personal boundaries according to the assumption that every man you don't already know who attempts to have a conversation with you is doing so as a prelude to rape…well, that's your right, I suppose. Freedom of conscience is a good thing. And those boundaries should indeed be respected.
But it may be worth considering that not everyone chooses to make that assumption, nor is there any kind of consensus on making that assumption the new default. Which does indeed mean that, if you want those boundaries to be respected, you'll have to communicate them.
Helpfully, doing so has a side effect…anyone who, after being informed that you do not wish to interact with them, persists in trying to interact with you anyway? Yeah, that person is someone to be careful of. The ones who desist when you ask them to, however, are not your enemies. (Which of course doesn't mean you owe them anything, except for purely passive tolerance of their continued presence at the same event as you're attending. You do, I think, owe them that right to be left alone, to enjoy the event in peace away from you.)
In a sane world, of course, it would go without saying that when I say "attempts to have a conversation with you", I mean…well…attempts to have a conversation. Not any action which would in and of itself constitute a criminal offense, even by a very strict, literalist, and intolerant interpretation of the penal law. Such as, say, touching a person in any way, fashion, or location without their consent, just for an example. But 572 posts in this thread so far have utterly disproved the notion that we live in a sane world, so I will say it explicitly. "Conversation" does not mean "touching". "No" means "no", not "maybe". (Shall we just start calling this the "standard disclaimer" and invoking it by reference?)
And maybe — just maybe — it's a bad idea to start writing policies and laws around words whose meaning is so variable and plastic that invoking them provokes people to spend hundreds of posts and days of their time arguing past one another about whether an unwanted conversational overture ("you look nice", or "can I buy you a drink", or "hi, my name is…") is or is not ethically equivalent to an assault ("here I am, sneaking up behind you and attempting to remove/dislodge articles of your clothing in the hallway").
@Kat
How are they not the same position? Stating that women need to be explicit in defining their boundaries is in no way mutually exclusive of not assuming mal intent when that boundary is violated. What you quoted from me was specifically in reference to the difference between defining your boundary as "no not now" and "no not ever". I have to remind my wife of this every once in a while but men in general, and geek men in particular are very literal creatures. What you say is assumed to be what you mean and if what you say is "no not now" then you mean "not now". But I still fail to see how that is exclusive to my position as a whole.
Yes it is (part of) what started this discussion and no one here has said that it is acceptable or OK in any way shape or form. In fact I have repeatedly (and in caps no less) stated the exact opposite. However, what I have been objecting too since the beginning is the other part of this thread which equated offering a drink with imminent threat of sexual assault or rape.
Yes, women are sexually assaulted at cons (real honest assault, not someone offering them a drink). That is horrible, wrong and should be stamped out, preferably violently but I'll settle for "within the bounds of the law". But if you were to take a random sample of men that attend cons, and further a random sample of men that attend cons that at least one woman has stated is "creepy" you would be better off betting on them simply being socially awkward and not a sexual predator.
I'm happy to talk about the problems faced at cons and how to solve them. I am not happy to start that conversation from the perspective that every male is a potential rapist or assaulter until proven otherwise.
I get that. I really, really, really do get that.
One last time: the problem that I am talking about is that saying "well, you've got to say no clearly" runs afoul of both established social norms and can put a woman at risk if she is dealing with someone likely to transgress her boundaries. If she says, "I'm not remotely interested in you, sorry" and she's dealing with is a jerk, that jerk is likely to just assault her.
And I feel like people are saying that this is acceptable collateral damage because they feel like it doesn't happen a lot (despite the prevalence of sexual assault and all the statistics linked upthread). I feel like people think that what's really important here is that men be given the benefit of the doubt, even if that causes women to be victimized or creates an environment in which predators can operate more freely. And that is not something that I will ever agree with, because it's not an acceptable trade-off.
I also feel like I'm not explaining myself well enough here, so rather than stick around and debate, I'm just going to say I'm out.
@TM
Oh, Gawd. The same old, same old :
"Words followed by action followed by violence if necessary. Simply put, you have a right to establish your boundaries, you have a right to enforce those boundaries, use those rights. I realize this can be difficult and even dangerous at times, but it is even more dangerous to allow people to continue to break your boundaries."
Has it not occurred to you that me and @Kat and others are and have been talking about how women enforce their boundaries from the first? That we were talking about how we'd like to have models of dealing with boundary enforcement that hadn't already been tried and found wanting? That honestly one of the ways we would like to enforce boundaries from the outset before we have to escalate to violence (in which, incidentally, we are unlikely to win, which will have awful side-effects – including spoiling the conference for the innocent bystanders – even if we do win, and which is just in principle a Bad Thing) is to have our judgment that some dickhead being creepy is actually BEING FUCKING CREEPY INSTEAD OF BEING SOCIALLY AWKWARD AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH RESPECTED and that, honestly, we've accumulated a data-bank big enough over the years to make sure we know the difference.
Trust us – we're talking on the same page when you talk about "establishing boundaries". Where we veer off it is when you interpret our boundary establishment as our awful, frightful, unreasonable, unfair, judgemental reaction to a particular guy you parse as "socially awkward" as "Creep!Threat! Fight or flight!"
We can either establish our boundaries by relying on our spidey senses that X is a full-blown creeper, do not pass go, do not get into the elevator with him, do not allow him to buy you a drink, avoid at all costs or we can follow your model and when the assumption of good faith fails then blow his head off in a crowded bar with the gun @Jeremy thinks we should have been carrying all along when it turns out that – guess what? – our spidey senses were right.
@ James Pollock,
I understand that you sincerely feel like a scapegoat. However, you're not being attacked for "saying one word against the orthodoxy." You're being attacked because you don't seem to realize that saying things like "Very well, continue NOT setting clear boundaries using unequivocal language, and whining about the results." is rightly perceived as incredibly aggressive, rude, and patronizing. You're being attacked because when you continue to say rude things like that, it creates a context that colors every other thing you say, even the ones people agree with, in an incredibly negative light.
On the abstract, I agree with you on one of your more controversial points: Victims do have some power to prevent crime. It's not an absolute power, it's not in any way a moral obligation, and sometimes, it's a power that can only be exercised through an unreasonable and unacceptable level of personal sacrifice. (Example: I can almost completely avoid being mugged by living in a bunker and never leaving.) Pointing out, "victims of sexual assault should be encouraged to speak up, because that give them some power not only to help themselves, but to help any potential future victims," is completely reasonable, and the idealist in me hopes that all you really mean. Phrasing it (and this is a lazy paraphrase since it's been blockquoted quite a bit already) "By not resisting or reporting a rape because you fear for your own safety, you are trading your safety for the safety of his future victims. AND THAT IS ON YOU" (emphasis mine). You're conveying the same basic information I am, and pointing out a conclusion that I'm sure most survivors struggle with in the back of their minds at some point, but phrasing it in that way is loaded with very strong negative implications that people, as you may have noticed, responded very negatively to.
Ken, are you really denying that women will, ceteris paribus, accept far more caddish behavior from high-SMV alphas that pique their sexual interest than from low-SMV beta orbiters? I really don't think that's a controversial viewpoint. An impolitic one, possibly. But not really refutable. (I make judgement about whether this attitude on the part of women is "right" or "wrong" or "fair," only that it is. Those are concepts for philosophers and priests, not me.)
That SNL clip is funny for a reason.
@Kat
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. The problem as I see it is that you're operating from the assumption that if you don't define clear boundaries with someone likely to assault you when you do, that they won't assault you. I think this is a bad assumption. If you're dealing with someone likely to assault you, then you're dealing with someone likely to assault you and whether it's because you defined a hard boundary or because you danced around the issue and left them an opening or because they are simply planning on assaulting you no matter what, the ultimate problem is this person is likely to assault you.
The problem is, the people likely to assault you for firmly establishing your boundaries are the same people who already know what the boundaries are and are ignoring them anyway, including whatever con policies there are against it. The answer therefore is not to ignore them and hope they choose to go assault someone else, the answer is to loudly and clearly define your boundary and highlight that this person is wilfully and intentionally violating it.
But again, as I've already said, assault is wrong and is intolerable. I don't know how many more ways I can say that before you will believe me, but frankly I'm getting tired of repeating it.
Meant that I make *NO* judgement…
"to have our judgment that some dickhead being creepy is actually BEING FUCKING CREEPY INSTEAD OF BEING SOCIALLY AWKWARD AND NEEDS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH RESPECTED"
Yeah. Because when any member of one group of people, on the basis of a completely arbitrary distinction they were born with, is empowered to unilaterally punish any member of another group of people for ill-defined offenses and on the basis of no evidence, that _always_ ends well for all concerned.
@ legionseagle
So what more do you want from me? I have already stated that once a boundary has been established, that it should be respected. I have already stated that if that boundary is not respected after having been established that it should be dealt with appropriately. I've even stated (though admittedly in not so many words) that your judgement that someone is behaving creepily should be respected and you should have assistance in getting away from them by being able to approach and have assistance from the con staff on the issue. What I have repeatedly asked though is that in all of this we stop approaching the issue from "every man who comes up to a woman is a potential sexual predator" angle. Because when the complaint is "I said "no not now" and he kept asking" or "OMG thats the 148th person to offer me a drink today" that isn't having set a clear boundary, and that isn't "That guy sets off my creeper alarm". I am happy to assist you in enforcing any boundary you wish, including a boundary that says that you think all males under 6' tall and weighing more than 150 lbs are creepers. I may think you're wrong and unfair, but I'm happy to help you enforce that boundary, but only if you define that boundary. If you instead come to me and say "I keep telling this guy I don't want to have drinks with him right now, but he keeps asking and I find him creepy", I'm going to rightfully ask you why you didn't tell him that from the get go instead of constantly saying "not right now". And again, I will happily help you enforce your boundary, but it will include being specific about your boundary.
In short, as I've said time and again. You have a right to establish your boundaries, you have a right to enforce those boundaries, you have a right to ask for help in enforcing those boundaries and you have a right to use whatever means necessary to enforce them when they are maliciously violated. You do not have a right to be upset when someone violates a boundary that you haven't clearly defined.
My experience suggests that the people who want their boundaries respected, and put forth firm signals about this, are the ones who are most likely to have those boundaries overrun.
A certain demeanor appears to be perceived by the aggressor as a challenge for them to push right over the boundary, again and again, trying to see what sort of response they can provoke.
Thus the unwinnable result: if you don't want something to happen, you can't be clear about this, or it brings about more of that thing. If you're not clear, it comes anyway, and people use the non-clarity against you later.
No doubt some women at some times do.
But the premise is that women (and men) are always on the prowl and always evaluating conduct based on the mate-potential of the actor. That's projection. Plenty of people being complained of as creepers have status and power. That's the point of some of the complaints linked in this post, by the way — that they get away with it repeatedly because they have status and power. Also, some people are at conventions because they are interested in the subject of the convention, not to hook up.
Also, people reject come-ons all the time from powerful and conventionally attractive people. Many of the sexual harassment cases I deal with involve women (and occasionally men) rejecting overtures from the powerful.
@TM At this point, I'm afraid, we'll have to establish a boundary: namely, that you think pouring gasoline onto a fire helps and I think it doesn't. We are clearly on opposite sides of that particular boundary and I suspect will remain so.
Great message. If only it would sink in with some people.
Random people on the internet will probably think much less of me after this post.
Some behavior is objectively creepy (and might even violate some of those fuzzy stalking statutes that have been popping up everywhere), no matter who it comes from. As a guy in the happy sweet spot of "not physically repulsive" and "not nearly attractive enough to be unapproachable," I've had some experience with unwanted attention, mostly from people I found completely unattractive. Sometimes, its that very behavior makes an otherwise physically attractive girl very undesirable. For some guys, there's a theoretical level of attractiveness where they will ignore their reservations just to sleep with the "hot crazy chick." It doesn't make the creepiness any less creepy, and it doesn't mean the behavior made the guy feel any less uncomfortable, it just means that some guys are kind of shallow. I know some women share similar sentiments.
It's much easier for guys, however. When we're interacting with a strange girl who just feels kind of off, we're mostly worried about non-life-threatening consequences: Maybe she'll end up stalking mefor a few months, or she'll get us thrown out of the library by acting like a stripper trying to earn tuition in ones by the children's section. The risk that she'll drug me harvest my organs is always there, but I it isn't foremost in my mind because I'm a guy, and my mom says I'm scrappy.
A woman has to worry about the social consequences, and that creepiness is a sign of unsuitability as a mate, but also about a non-negligible, potentially immediate danger of actual of physical assault. The fact that a few women will find some guys attractive enough to ignore these concerns doesn't mean that those concerns aren't there or that they aren't valid. Really, I've found that some women will put up with an incredible amount of bullshit if they find the guy attractive enough. That fact is kind of sad. However, it's not an indication that bullshit behavior is anything less than bullshit, it's not a justification for that same bullshit from other men, and it certainly doesn't obligate other, more discerning women to happily accept that bullshit.
@Tarrou
"That particular point of Pollock's is a good one. It's not about him, it's about him and me, and legions of men who treat women well and would like to see them treated better by those who don't. But if we attempt to counsel caution lest men be victimized in the rush to ensure that no women are, well, the anger is no less instantaneous and virulent than that which you complained of originally."
You are aware that the majority of women who have been harassed and assaulted and raped actually have men in their lives? We love them and respect them, some of them we birth and raise, etc. I'm pretty sure none of us is out to modify culture so that all those men and boys we love can get a turn being ground under someone's heel.
"Defending normal and healthy male behavior is not rape apology. Attempting to safeguard men from baseless and subjective charges is not misogyny. And trying to categorize it as such does nothing more than exacerbate the virulence problem which was the original complaint."
And yet, when in all these posts above women offer the explanation that normal and healthy FEMALE behavior drives women's actions, such as offering modified compassionate rejections instead of a verbal bitchslap, the general chorus is that we'd better change that, because it's not working.
And I agree, that women and girls need to support each other in changing how we respond to harassment and assault and rape. What is "normal and healthy" for this culture will almost de facto not help with *changing* this culture. Lots of us – and lots of men – are doing just that, including Ken with this post, and all the people he linked to in it, and everydaysexism.com, and so forth.
In all honesty, though, those here who have been participating in the "protect the honorable men from overreaction" caucus aren't doing anything. James Pollock will do something if a woman puts her hand up and says, "I could use some help here". But the amount of pushback to my simple recommendation that any person approach another person for a social encounter with an introduction of themselves first (absent the intention that it remain an anonymous encounter), or that people err on the side of "don't do that if you can't reliably predict how the other person will receive it" demonstrates exactly how unwilling many men are about changing their habits and techniques to assist the culture modification.
I raised a confident 17yo girl who gets verbally sexually harassed on the streets every time she goes out. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about this, although I am thinking to encourage her to use her biggest acting voice to shout, "Oh look everyone, a pathetic man with a tiny penis thinks I should give him some attention!" Except, of course, that would be verbal sexual harassment. Which people who are trying to change the culture to get rid of sexual harassment have a pretty hard time getting their minds around, because it sort of perpetuates the culture rather than changing it.
@Tarrou,
Advising caution is great. I hate witch hunts, and I hate solutions that create bigger problems through over-correction. The gap in communication seems to be that you and James feel that there is undue virulence directed at you both for espousing that view. There is not. There is certainly some virulence, but it's motivated more by the tone than the content of your arguments.
I'm sure your use of "feminist lexicon bingo" was a well-intentioned joke, meant to poke fun of certain extremist factions of the feminist movement, and not as an attempt to demean every woman who believes that sexual harassment is bad. Unfortunately, I don't think many people interpreted it that way.
I don't like definitional "femi-Nazi's," which I guess must be women who advocate an extreme level of feminist empowerment through subordinating men, oppressive statist policies, and genocide. I think their ideas are bad for society, and that as people they should certainly be mocked. I also know it's a highly loaded term–many women whom I respect, who mostly espouse positions I completely agree with, get called femi-Nazi's all the time, mostly I imagine by asshats who want to go back to the days when rape was a property crime. So as much as I would like to use the term to hold the theoretical femi-Nazi up to ridicule at time, I generally refrain from doing it because the asshats have appropriated the term, because when I use the term in pretty much any context, for the women listeners it will mostly evoke images of those asshats saying "Bitch, make me a sandwich."
@legionseagle
Yeah, that's not what I think at all. To go with your analogy, I simply think that ignoring the fire or hoping the wind blows it another way or someone else puts it out and not digging fire breaks because you might get burned (or even killed) is not likely to help the situation. But if you want to end our discussion on your bad faith interpretation of what I've been saying, I won't stop you.
@Kat
I would argue that behavior which is not doing anything to prevent (and in some cases enabling) sexual assault of the person in question is by definition not healthy. It may be normal, but then we should be seeking to change the behavior norms.
Sorry that last one is @Christina, my apologies.
Ken,
People too often confuse "status" with "money" or "job." They can be related, but are not necessarily so. Any behavior that a woman says is "creepy" is, by definition, status-lowering behavior that lowers the SMV of the man. Plenty of betas have money and important jobs. That doesn't mean women are any more sexually interested in them.
But it boils down to the same thing: the projection that if a woman rejects you or finds your advice creepy it's because you lack some X factor that women shallowly seek, which is why it's cool to view them with contempt.
@TM,
You make a good point about what is "healthy," but I would argue it's not so clear cut what counts as healthier. You state that current female behavioral norms do nothing to prevent sexual assault. As Kat posted several times (with handy link), the current behavior IS in fact preventing sexual assault on some level (essentially, "be careful not to piss off the horny bear.")
Now, it's an open question how many assaults (sexual or not) would be caused if all women just started saying, "Hell no, not in a million years" versus how many would be prevented by eliminating the ambiguity of maybe. I hope the first number would be no, and that most men aren't thin-skinned, ultra-violent wannabe alphas that would attack a woman for saying no. I'm also hoping that the second number is low, that somewhere between "wanna chat?" and "wanna let me put it in?" the woman switches from saying "not now" to "hell no."
I don't think it's "shallow" at all to be discriminating in mate choice, not do I think it's "cool" to hold women in contempt. I'm just explaining the basis for that discrimination.
@TM
I would argue that behavior which is not doing anything to prevent (and in some cases enabling) sexual assault of the person in question is by definition not healthy. It may be normal, but then we should be seeking to change the behavior norms.
I completely agree, for both male and female "normal and healthy" behavior. It's reasonable within the culture we're stuck in, but I don't subscribe to culture as being something we're stuck WITH, thus it's not healthy for any individual in the long-term. If you want it modified, you've got to get your hands dirty and take a few risks. As many here are saying, the risks for males working to change sexual culture are quite distinctly lower than those for women doing the same (not universally, but for males as a set and for many individual males given power distribution). As such, it seems like more males would be happy to "make a difference" by changing things that are pretty safe and easy to change, rather than whinging about how it might impede their ability to enjoy themselves unrestrictedly. Women deal with that all the time, in the name of safety.
I admire that Ken, who is simultaneously a free speech zealot :-) puts himself out there to deal with sexual harassment, which is all about speech (because if it's physical, it's assault, as we're all getting really clear on). That seems like it would be a complicated space to navigate, but necessary from both sides.
But you continue to frame it as a decision about sexual interest by women — that the reason someone gets turned down after their advance at a con is because they lack the X factor that makes them sexually interesting, not because the time/place/manner is disturbing. You are suggesting, from your first comment, that women are insincere — that their finding an approach creepy is all about the creeper not being good enough. The implication is that if you can just learn to have the X factor, you have behave like that anywhere/anywhen, and these objections of creeping will just fall away. I'm saying that's PUA bullshit.
TAGFAIL
@TM
I would argue that behavior which is not doing anything to prevent (and in some cases enabling) sexual assault of the person in question is by definition not healthy. It may be normal, but then we should be seeking to change the behavior norms.
I completely agree, for both male and female "normal and healthy" behavior. It's reasonable within the culture we're stuck in, but I don't subscribe to culture as being something we're stuck WITH, thus it's not healthy for any individual in the long-term. If you want it modified, you've got to get your hands dirty and take a few risks. As many here are saying, the risks for males working to change sexual culture are quite distinctly lower than those for women doing the same (not universally, but for males as a set and for many individual males given power distribution). As such, it seems like more males would be happy to "make a difference" by changing things that are pretty safe and easy to change, rather than whinging about how it might impede their ability to enjoy themselves unrestrictedly. Women deal with that all the time, in the name of safety.
I admire that Ken, who is simultaneously a free speech zealot :-) puts himself out there to deal with sexual harassment, which is all about speech (because if it's physical, it's assault, as we're all getting really clear on). That seems like it would be a complicated space to navigate, but necessary from both sides.
@CTD,
You and I must live in pretty different worlds. The last time I've seen a substantial amount of the behavior you describe was middle school, maybe early high school. Girls reject unattractive guys all the time. From my observations, the mean ones are often brutally honest to the guys they reject, while the nice ones tell them lies to spare their feeling ("I have a boyfriend" "I don't date guys of X ethnicity" "I used to be a dude, but I'm one surgery away.")
Obviously, there are limitations in my observations. It could be that all of these women do think all unattractive guys are creepy. I could certainly imagine the nice ones lying to spare the guy. However, I can't imagine that a girl would think "This guy is creepy because he's so ugly" and then lie about it and say, "Sorry, I don't date short fat bald guys." It doesn't serve the spare the guy's feelings and it doesn't serve to make the girl look any less shallow.
As with all things, we're talking about the margins. Certainly, in some time/place/manner combination, a particular woman will reject any approach. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that a man with tight game will find that said time/place/manner restrictions will be a lot more malleable than a man without.
@Manatee,
You're confusing your definition of "attractive" with a woman's. Looking like an Abercrombie model won't hurt your chances, but looks will be far from determinant when it comes to female attraction. In dudespeak, when a woman calls a man "attractive," she means "interesting."
You're right, we are talking about margins. Every time people give examples of unwelcome harassment, someone comes out of the woodwork to say "oh, with the right guy and the right woman, that would have worked." Someone keeps hitting on a woman after she mentions her husband? Polyamory exists, she could have been polyamorous! Someone walks up to a woman and says "Nice ass, let's fuck"? I heard a story about a woman who smiled and said "sure" after being asked that once! I think she was the sister of that kid who died from eating pop rocks. A stranger grabbed you from behind? Oh, some people are comfortable with their bodies and like human contact!
For every act, the discussion is not what the subject wanted or felt, or what most women discussing it would want or feel, but about home some hypothetical woman somewhere — who may or may not only exist in the imaginations of PUAs — might have reacted, and how talking about how this specific woman reacted and every woman who talks about it reacted is therefore a GROSS OVERGENERALIZATION that is likely to lead to the systematic oppression of men.
That's marginal, all right.
[The pop rock reference is a jab at @Christina; we'll see if she remembers the reference a quarter-century later.)
TM
But strangely these very literal creatures usually have no trouble interpreting conventional polite/diplomatic language that softens a "no" from their male friends/colleagues/bosses as a clear refusal of whatever activity/innovation/venture they just proposed: these very literal creatures normally only have problems interpreting the exact same conventional politenesses around a "no" when they are being uttered by a woman.
Also, I've known quite a few women who have slept with guys whose behavior they–and numerous other women–found creepy, both before and after the act. Some of these guys are my friends–fun, reasonably attractive, successful guys that obviously some women find attractive. However, in certain social situations, their behavior becomes incredibly crude and probably toes the line of sexual battery.
Obviously, the fact that some women slept with them doesn't mean that all, or even most, women find them attractive necessarily (although many of my friends who would never get involved with them precisely because of their inappropriate behavior have said that they're otherwise pretty hot). However, I do find it quite telling that so many women consider creepiness and attractiveness fairly independently.
I've also known quite a few unwilling virgins who put themselves out there quite frequently and fairly aggressively (none of that asexual friend-zone crap) with no success but also without getting the creepy label.
@Ken, oh to be that naive again ;-) Now it's all about kidney-harvesting!
"Guys, if you don't understand what women mean by "creeper," juts replace it everywhere you see with "low-value beta male orbiter" and everything makes sense."
===========================================
"This is one subspecies of what I am talking about: the notion that women who don't want to be creeped on are rejecting their creepers because they are looking for wealthy/powerful/assertive "Alphas," because they are cold and calculating. Under this worldview, women are shallow creatures who would giggle and accept it if Mr. Confident Executive came up and sniffed their hair, but only reject such overtures from others because they want to climb.
It's projection, for the most part, by people who don't see others as actual human beings, and assume that the women they are complaining about see the world as a collection of rated objects like they do."
===========================================
I respectfully disagree Ken, I submit there are as many shallow women creatures out there as there are shallow men creatures. And more than enough to make both sides of this argument valid. Yes harassment takes place, it's a bad thing that needs to be addressed when it happens. Non-harassment, categorized as harassment, also take place, that should be recognized as well. Yes, you alluded to false claims, it felt to me like you minimized the impact those false claims do have. I admit that could be a symptom of my personal experiences and how I react to this topic though (which I suppose illustrates the whole point of your post.)
@CTD
So much as being hetero male makes it impossible for me to entirely understand female attractiveness, thus presenting theoretical limits, but in every other sense you're not. I use short, fat, and bald in my later post because because it's an easy short hand example. I use physical attractiveness when I talk about my experiences because, well, I'm a guy. I've also said that objectively creepy behavior makes a woman less attractive in my eyes. For a woman, attraction isn't solely based on appearance, which probably magnifies the effect of objectively creepy behavior on overall attractiveness. I was reading the PUA forums in high school, several years before The Game came out and gave it mainstream attention. I completely agree with your premise that acting creepy lowers your value. However, that doesn't change my rejection of your premise that "creepy" is simply short hand for "unattractive guy approaches me."
I think on the margins, as you say, that MIGHT be a helpful message–the relatively uncommon nice guy with zero social skills meeting the rare woman who either 1) sincerely believes any unattractive guy talking to her, no matter how polite, is creepy or 2) calls him creepy for some reason despite not being attractive to him. For that guy, in that situation, being reassured that his approach didn't violate any boundaries or social rules, and that he was just batting above his league and preventing unnecessary hand-wringing might be a good thing.
However, I think it's a message that's quite untrue and unhelpful in most situations. Most of the time, when a woman says a guy is creepy that he's making her feel scarred or uncomfortable, it's primarily because of his behavior, and not because some beta-male orbiter had the gall to come up to her and say hi. I think that message is disrespectful to women. Like I've stated before, I acknowledge that many women put up with a lot of crap–it's amazing how many abused spouses stay with their batterers, for example. However, the fact that a small minority of women have low self-esteem or other issues doesn't mean that all of them would happily accept boundary-breaking creepy behavior if only the guy doing it were dreamy enough.
Most of all, that message is a disservice to men. One of the few virtues of the PUA community is it's message that you're not trapped by your background–improve yourself, develop some confidence, and you can be the kind of guy women want. You're basically saying that if women think you're creepy, the only thing you can do is raise your value to the point that some of them no longer think you're creepy. In the strictest sense, it might work: Once you've got enough game, you'll go from the guy who makes 1000 women uncomfortable/afraid, to one of those guys who makes 999 women uncomfortable and afraid and nails lucky girl #1000. The option it implicitly ignores is probably the best one: reexamining your own behavior to figure out if and why it violates some personal boundary or social convention, and maybe making a choice to correct it. Not only does that provide a great service to the 999 women you won't be creeping out, it also serves your own self-interest–like you said, creepy behavior lowers SMV. Therefore, figuring out how to be respect boundaries while remaining assertive and confident is a great first step in becoming a higher value mate.
@Manatee
It's quite clear that while it may be preventing individual cases of assault, the current behavior is not doing anything to stop the problem as a whole, which is why we're talking about it now. This goes back to what Mr. Pollock said up thread, if you're assault victim #4 for the day, don't you wish someone before had said something and gotten the guy kicked out or arrested before he got to you?
@ Christina
Oh I absolutely agree, and I apologize if it appears that I was implying these behavior changes are the responsibility of one side alone. As I said briefly up thread, the more mature male geeks have a responsibility in all of this too. We need to call our friends out when they're behaving like pigs. Natural male behavior is not behaving like a boorish ogre, and we shouldn't be excusing boorish behavior with "boys will be boys". That isn't to say we have to stamp out every dongle joke (sorry ladies, but anatomy jokes are part of normal human humor, have been for a long long time. Y'all are just as guilty about those too, some of the things my female friends said would make even a sailor blush.), but it does mean respecting (and enforcing that respect) when someone speaks up and asks you to keep it down or to yourself. It means when our friends are acting awkward, correcting them before they make an ass of themselves. And it means stepping in when you see something that looks wrong. It doesn't have to be much but a simple "Is everything alright here" goes a long long way (though gals, give us a hand and tell us things aren't ok when they aren't). Neither side is without a responsibility in all of this, but equally neither side is completely at fault for the situation as it stands.
@tigtog
Yeah, no, they have those same problems elsewhere. I already covered this up thread, but I'll cover it again. Can I presume you haven't worked with geeks, because I can assure you that the same ones that would screw up a social interaction enough to miss the hint that their attentions aren't wanted at all are the same ones that screw up those interactions at work. As for failing at social interactions with friends, assuming that they have many friends, their friends are likely also bad at it or they tolerate it and don't call them out. Heck, for a good example, just look at any message board devoted to table top games and count how often a "This guy in my gaming group is ruining it for everyone and we keep dropping hints and he's just not getting it" thread pop up. I see them at least once a month if not more frequently.
Following this thread, it would seem that creepy is becoming something like hate speech laws. The definition has been expanded to include everything from casual conversational gambits to skin walking, the use of it is easy to be abused or misconstrued, and the results can be devastating for the falsely accused.
What hate speech law, exactly? Are you talking about Canada or something? Are you under the impression that there are current enforceable American "hate speech laws"?
And what is "skin walking?"
@Kat • Jul 3, 2013 @9:53 am:
The problem with that is that there's a legitimate, normal scenario it doesn't account for, or at least doesn't treat fairly.
It accounts for the scenario in which person A wants to interact with person B, but person B wants to not interact with person A. Person B will simply not follow up on the provided contact information.
It accounts for the scenario in which person A wants to interact with person B, and person B would like to interact with person A, but person B is busy or otherwise not presently available. Person B will follow up on the provided contact information.
However, it does not account for the scenario in which person A wants to interact with person B, and person B does not care one way or the other about interacting with person A, and person B is busy or otherwise not presently available. In that scenario, person B would not have any problem with interacting with person A at a later (non-busy) time, but will still not follow up on the provided contact information. As a result, person A will not get what they want, even though person B would not have a problem with that happening.
It's entirely possible that the "doesn't care one way or the other" scenario is considerably less common than either of the other two; I would personally be surprised, since I would expect it to be considerably more common, but I've been wrong before. It's still a reasonable, legitimate situation where your proposed response would rule out a positive result which would otherwise be possible.
I freely acknowledge that that is not important enough to outweigh some of the other concerns involved in these discussions. It's still something that would greatly bother me, however.
I wasn't referring to any specific laws in particular, but the not insignificant number of people that would argue for and against their existence as well as the predicted consequences and reasons used by each side. It may just be me, but the similarity of the two debates seems quite clear.
Skin walking was in regards to Manatee referencing Silence of the Lambs with a White Wolf LARP term.
Gah. I've been reading at this comments for several days now, and finally got fed up. Jumping to the comments.
1. It's been amazing watching men tell women what they're allowed to be offended by, or consider harassment.
2. I think that attempting to fold this into "geekdom" and keep it there does a great disservice to the actual issue.
I would venture that many players, let's say, of FPS games at this point, are not actually geeks. They're people who would otherwise be considered jocks, and their trash talk fits just as well into the internet as it does into the locker room or on the field.
And it's just as inappropriate everywhere. The defense shouldn't be "if women want equality, they should have to put up with how men treat each other like shit". People should, instead, be encourage to treat each other like other human beings and honor that quality in one another.
3. The tendency within this thread to take any given point and turn it into a wild logical fallacy has been quite sad, but enormously mundane for the internet as a whole. Thanks for representing.
4. The issue, as I see it, isn't social ineptness. It's the people who believe that the way that they are is just fine, and that the things that they want should be theirs now, no matter the cost. And they exist in all walks of life.
So the vagueness of hate speech laws, which don't exist in America and which have been struck down by American courts when tried and which are generally accepted by legal commentators as unconstitutional, but which some unidentified people support, are like individuals' use of the term "creeper" to order the way they personally exercise their freedom of speech and association?
I'm not sure I follow.
There have been a few comments proposing changes to the rules that govern certain gatherings and a lot that desire individuals change the rules by which they govern themselves. These are similar to laws in that you can abide by them or there would be consequences.
Again, I am referring to neither specific laws (I'm referring to arguments made) nor specific countries (Geeks, nerds, and gamers are fairly ubiquitous these days). I'm sure there's a post or two on this site on the subject.
the gist of it is:
The good intentions stated by the side proposing hate speech laws as argued against by those who believe that such laws may not achieve the intended effect or bring with it unintended consequences that could be worse than the original problem due to poor planning and unclear goals.
One thing that seems to keep coming up is men being worried about borderline cases; about being perceived as creepy simply for not being up to a woman's standards; about "creepiness" being equated with social awkwardness or undesirability.
I think these men are suffering from a huge information deficit.
After all, if woman say sexual harassment is rampant, and the men don't ever see particularly egregious behaviors, women must be falsely categorizing actually-innocent behavior, right? And then the men might have to worry that they could inadvertently say the wrong thing and risk offending someone. (And we wouldn't want guys to have to actually, y'know, think about treating the people around with with respect; that's too hard?)
Back to the information-deficit part. A lot of harassment is never seen by men.
It happens when the woman is alone.
It happens in crowds, but under the radar; only two people in this crowded room know this guy just grabbed my ass.
It happens in sequence; you can't tell a guy's following a woman from room to room if you're passing by.
And when women talk to each other and say "harassment happens all the time," we know this. When I say to men, "harassment happens all the time," I don't mean "you don't understand; it's uncomfortable to have to reject sub-par guys, whine whine." I mean "I am not remotely surprised if my ass gets grabbed in public, because this is not uncommon."
So, one last foray into this. I am not going to try to respond to any particular posts (age/CTS/arthritis/laziness/mental health concerns). Rather, I will try to reframe some of my earlier comments.
1) Most women, most of the time, do not think of themselves as potential sex partners. It seems that some number of men also do not think of themselves this way 24/7.
2) This means that being regarded as a potential sex partner 24/7 annoys many women, even if no individual man knows/can know that any individual woman has been approached (I gather this is better than ‘hit on’ or ‘pestered’). Some men might find the woman’s irritation unfair to them, individually. As any number of commenters has said, “That’s life.” I do not know whether person X has been asked 10 times for a cigarette; I do not blame person X for being annoyed that I am the latest to make that request, though it is far less personal than a pick-up effort.
3) Many women, throughout history, have found ways to signal their interest in a man. Happily, it seems that younger women are finding it easier to be the ‘initiators’ (although, I find that term rather militaristic). This is a good thing, for men and women – perhaps especially for ‘shy/geeky’ men.
4) Women have good reason to be worried about sexual assault. Sorry, however good a guy you are, we cannot tell just by looking at you.
5) Most women have been subjected to scary, offensive, or annoying conduct throughout their lives. Several women on this thread have related their stories of atrocious abuse. But many of us lucky enough to have escaped that can relate tales from early childhood on of scary, offensive, or annoying behavior by men (of all ages). You want us to be sympathetic to you; try it the other way around.
6) If and when you nicely approach a woman who seems otherwise engaged, and she reacts angrily (or, whatever), you will feel this personally. You might stop and consider whether she is just trying to finish reading this page and has been kept from doing so by a series of such approaches. That might make it seem less personal.
7) It is always a possibility that the person one approaches (whatever one’s sex or orientation) is just not attracted to one. This, too, is life. The proper response is to smile and walk away, not to harass/stalk/insult that person. Nor, I would think, to go online and complain at length that the people I find attractive don’t find me attractive.
P.S. The term 'creeper' is new to me. I am familiar with someone saying that 'this person is being creepy,' and such.
I can certainly understand that normally behaving, decent persons would not want to be so labelled, anymore than any person wants to be labelled as a 'bitch,' 'feminazi,' and other words I will not post here.
Perhaps we should all eschew categorical labeling of others until we have solid, objective evidence of any individual's meriting such labels.
@ Beth
That's why we're asking for you to make it visible. Call it out when it happens not later. That's the only way we can help. Look, months back a woman got offended by a man cracking dongle jokes with his friend. An internet lynch mob later and the guy lost his job. I assure you if this could happen over a private joke, if someone grabs your ass in public and you turn around point him out and ask people to assist you in stopping him and reporting him, you will get the help you seek.
Also, it's not all an information deficit. When over the course of these discussions we get claims about how offering a drink is akin to a threatening sexual encounter (see earlier in this thread) or that the fact that a woman was approached by many different men over the course of the weekend is harassment it's clear that we're not all on the same page, and the guys who think they're merely innocently starting a social encounter with a woman are rightly concerned that they're going to be labeled or wrongly punished.
Heck even when we agree that a given proposition is offensive (again see up thread "hey babe, can I buy you a drink") we're not even on the same page as to what part is offensive (was it the offer to buy a drink, or the word "babe"?). It's only reasonable that if we can't agree what's offensive that there will be misunderstandings and people will be hurt.
None of this is to say that harassment doesn't happen or that such behavior isn't a problem and doesn't need to be stopped. But we need to come to a reasonable agreement on what that is and dismissing the male's point of view concerning reasonable and un-reasonable behavior as mere "information-deficit" is unfair I think. We're ready and willing to help, help us help you.
@TM:
Actually I am a geek, I have worked with geeks, I grew up around geeks, I have a family full of geeks including more than a handful who are bona fide Socially Awkward with actual diagnoses (not just speculations) on the Autistic Spectrum. I've even raised two Socially Awkward ASD geek children to become socially responsible adults who sometimes misstep but who know to back off when given signals of non-interest. I'm comprehensively and rigorously aware of the differences between genuine cases of Perpetual Social Cluelessness (in both men and women) and the mendacious obnoxious arseholes who use the existence of the Perpetually Socially Clueless people as a screen for their own malfeasances, so they can fly under the plausible deniability radar when they harass and bully people (harassment covers far more than just sexual harassment, after all), and one of the most obvious differential signs is that the mendacious obnoxious arseholes respond to politely-softened-no phrases coming from people with status/authority over them with full appreciation of the nuanced signals while professing to simply not understand the exact same signals when coming from the targets of their harassment.
Now let me remind you of what you actually said upthread:
You made a claim about "men in general" and "geek men in particular" which I challenged. Your reply has shifted the goalposts to the subset of the Perpetually Socially Clueless which while it may account for a *slightly* higher proportion amongst geek men in particular, is really relatively rare amongst men in general.
I also have no doubt that amongst those table-top gaming groups you describe above with instances of "that guy" who is "ruining it for everyone" and who doesn't pick up on repeated hints, that more than a few of them are not Perpetually Clueless at all but are actually mendacious obnoxious arseholes who know exactly what they're doing – trolling in real life for negative reactions and disrupted communities, because Arsehole Performance Art that ruins other people's fun is how they get their jollies.
"Perhaps we should all eschew categorical labeling of others until we have solid, objective evidence of any individual's meriting such labels."
Good luck with that. I for one don't consider it likely they'll willingly give up the power to arbitrarily punish anyone they feel like punishing. Objective evidence is so messy and hard, after all. So much easier just to write up a rule that bans an essentially undefined status offense, and thereby renders one person's subjective feelings into sufficient cause to forcibly eject another person from an event.
@ ChrisTS
I think part of the problem is that points #1 and #2 combine to appear to most males as an accusation that all men starting an interaction with a woman at a con is propositioning her for sex. That's a highly offensive assumption to make.
As regards point 3, it's a very good thing. The fact of the matter is most problems are problems of communication. By normalizing women expressing their desires and wants we improve communication and reduce the amount of indirect signaling and interpretation we have to do, directly reducing the miscommunication and accidental boundary crossing.
As regards to point 4, the problem is misplaced fear. Strangers are not the most prolific perpetrator of sexual assault, for example this study finds that only 2% of assaults are perpetrated by strangers ( though I should note while they use sexual assault in the report, it appears they are primarily talking about rape / coerced sex rather than all sexual assault). The majority were current dates, friends and ex's and the most common location was the home of either the perpetrator or the victim. Equally the BJS notes that the actual rate has been falling for the past decade and that 78% are committed by non strangers and 55% at home. Again, the point here isn't the minimize the fact that this is still a problem at cons, but to highlight that any random male at a con is highly unlikely to be a sexual predator. I'm not asking for trust, I'm asking that you don't assume I'm a rapist just because I'm talking to you.
To point 5, those people have my sympathies. But the inappropriate behaviors of others is not mine to apologize or make amends for. I don't encourage it, condone it or support it, and if asked for help I will do everything in my power to stop it.
As for numbers 6 and 7, agreed pretty much completely. The corollary of course is what I've been asking all along, that women not assume every male approaching them is a sexual predator or propositioning them for sex, and that they recognize that while they may have been approached 100 times today, it's the first time for this guy. IOW, a little bit of civility all around will go a long way.
@tigtog
So are you saying that in your experience, men in general and geek men in particular do not operate on a more literal level. That they do not generally use or appreciate the more subtle nuances of social signaling? That they are not much more likely to simply tell you you're an ass rather than simply stop talking to you entirely. Yes I did make that statement about men in general. It was also in the context of discussing men missing the cues coming from a "not now response", I had assumed (apparently wrongly) that by specifying men in general and geek men in particular in describing the trait that readers would be able to subsequently follow that men who miss the described social cues are even more literal than men in general. Apparently that was not clear, so that's my fault for not being more specific. My claim still holds that men (by virtue of social mores) are more literal and direct in their social transactions and are likely to carry that literal and directness over to social transactions with the opposite sex.
@ Lelnet
"I for one don't consider it likely they'll willingly give up the power to arbitrarily punish anyone they feel like punishing. "
Who is "they", exactly?
In my experience any difference in operation "on a more literal level" between men and women is mapped out on two closely overlapping bell curves, just like almost everything else regarding differences between men and women. The difference between the normatives and the geeks also maps to closely overlapping bell curves in slightly different places on various axes. In both sets of differences there is more sigma-variation within each bell curve than there is between them, so just like generalisations such as "men are stronger than women" would mean nothing in a cage fight between Serena Williams and Justin Bieber, "geek men operate on a more literal level" means nothing when we're looking at individual social skills – one has to specify where exactly the individuals concerned sit on those bell curves.
I didn't fail to follow your argument – I followed it in full and I rejected it as irrelevant, because when we're talking about anti-harassment policies we're talking about premeditated/intransigent/recalcitrant harassers and how pretending to miss social cues while testing/crossing boundaries is how they get away with what they do.
@TM
I wasn't trying to dismiss it, and I apologize if that's how it came across. I was actually trying to understand– well, I was getting back to Ken's original question about why this particular subject seems to inspire frothing vitriol. I don't want to shrug my shoulders and say "some guys are just misogynists," even though maybe that's the answer. I like to think better of my fellow human than that. I like to hope that there's a misunderstanding that can be rectified.
Perhaps Grifter said it better:
This is what I was trying to get at. And I wasn't trying to say men weren't listening or weren't paying attention or weren't trying to understand; I was pointing out that much of the ACTUAL creepiness is simply not easily visible.
@tigtog
So even though you do acknowledge that there are men (and in particular geeks) who take things more literally than the women they're interacting with, and that there are equally some men who exploit the existence of those other men to use as a cover for their inappropriate behavior, you somehow concluded that my statement regarding the existence of those Type 1 men and it being a reason why clear and distinct boundaries are necessary is somehow irrelevant?
If all women used clear and definitive boundaries ("No I'm not interested") instead of round about hints ("Not now"), then it wouldn't matter whether the woman in question was dealing with a Type 1 literal geek or a Type 2 jackass, in either case, the boundary would be clearly established and there would be no excuse crossing that boundary. Since you acknowledge that the Type 2 jackasses use the existence of Type 1 geeks as cover for their behavior, I would say that my statement is quite relevant to the discussion at hand.
Unless I'm misunderstanding and it is you're assertion that the number of men at cons who are Type 2 jackasses, intentionally ignoring boundaries that they're well aware of outnumbers the number of Type 1 geeks that are just treating things literally and are otherwise socially awkward. If that's your assertion then I suppose that my statement regarding the existence of Type 1 geeks is irrelevant, but that the underlying point (the need for strong definitive boundaries) is made even stronger by your assertion. If these men are using weakly defined boundaries as an excuse, then take away their excuse, regardless of whether they're telling the truth.
Again and for what must be the 10th time today, I am not and will not defend people committing real assault. I am not and will not defend people violating boundaries that have been clearly defined. What I am and will defend are the people that will get swept up in the collateral damage if we start treating all interactions between strangers of the opposite sex as hostile interactions until proven otherwise. I do not believe and no one has provided any evidence that any significant majority of con going males are sexual predators (or even straight up assholes) and I refuse to be a part of encouraging any policies which will treat them as such.
@ Beth
No hard feelings, that's why I'm in this conversation, because clarity on all sides serves us better than assuming the worst of our fellow humans. Which incidentally leads me to apologize for assuming based on what appears to be your first post in a long while that you were being dismissive and not assuming positive intent.
Ultimately it is interesting that you and grifter did make essentially the same argument, but from opposite ends of the spectrum. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read it as your argument being:
"Women are angry because they're harassed and assaulted, and men don't see it, in part because it goes undetected and in part because most men aren't sexual predators and don't knowingly associate with them."
Grifter appears to be saying:
"Men are angry because they are unjustly accused or even punished for what is to their mind normal male behavior and the women don't see it, in part because of different opinions on normal behavior (again, see the up thread discussion on offering a drink / lunch) and in part because most women do not have chips on their shoulders and do not seek to punish innocuous behavior."
Which leads us all the way back around to trying to define what behaviors we consider appropriate and inappropriate.
But it also leads to the conclusion that the two major points of action we can take as a group are:
Men need to police their own better and be more aware and step in to help those with problems, this includes calling your friends out and stopping them from being inappropriate.
Women need to speak up so that men can be aware and need to remember be sure that they are communicating clear boundaries to potentially innocuous "first time" non-physical offenses (such offenses to be discussed later).
Do you agree with this so far or have I missed something?
TM, Since we're talking at cross-purposes regarding the relevance of "operating on a more literal level" I propose to discontinue that non-productive portion of the discussion. Let's take a look at your concluding paragraph above:
Who exactly has advocated "treating all interactions between strangers of the opposite sex as hostile interactions until proven otherwise"?
)
Repeated studies have shown that between 6-16% of men will admit to behaviours that meet legal definitions of rape/sexual assault so long as the questioners describe the behaviours without using the word "rape", so where is your evidence that the proportion of rapists in the population of con going males is lower than the proportion of rapists in the general population?
Anyway, I need to go rehearse my songs for band tonight for the next few hours. Seeya later.
Sexual harassment has a very specific meaning. It gets diluted in people's minds when behavior like this is described as such.
Here's a meandering stab at distinguishing sexism from racism in this context.
With racism, from a young age everyone in modern polite society is taught to STAY AWAY, AWAY, AWAY from making any racist comments in any venue more revealing than 4chan unless the audience has been thoroughly vetted. Aside from both the evil of racism and its prevalence in society, everyone at least knows no good comes from being openly racist.
The story, however unfortunate it may be, is fundamentally more complex and therefore different for sexism. As a relatively innocuous example, we know to treat people differently based on gender in some cases when a given behavior is fine between men but might come off as creepy if directed toward a woman.
Furthermore, the rules are vague. Some people make an "X factor" sort of error in processing this vagueness, but the vagueness is still there and important to acknowledge if you want to predict their responses.
Keeping a lid on these uncertainties is not an option (for anyone with sexuality to express).
Almost everyone makes mistakes, or regrets certain past behaviors, as they mature and have new emotional growth and decide what appropriate behavior is. In an attempt to tie in the nerd culture angle, people who are affiliated with nerd culture may well have had more difficulty finding a happy path for themselves.
This is not a topic our society is comfortable discussing. I am sure there is good advice out there for people trying to figure these things out. However, I am sure it is DWARFED by the volume of criticism of people who make these mistakes (creeps), praise of people who seem to just get it right(guys with the X factor who gets lots of sex), suggestions from PUAs, and negative reactions to airing this dirty laundry (which might be related to the reactions you get).
This is a subject pertinent to everyone, especially the plethora of young males on the internet. It is deeply emotional. It is associated with many negative raw experiences for which we have poor coping mechanisms, compared to other aspects of life.
Which all goes to say, walk in to a minefield and you will hear explosions. Carry on.
I'm betting you all have university degrees, don't you? I say that because no other group could possibly make something simple so complicated.
Some random thoughts…
Every situation is different, and there are just as many responses. There is no one answer. It's called life. Some people are better at it than others.
If you want to go places where you know people make you uncomfortable, find a way to do it without stepping on to many feelings, or people will think you are an asshole, they won't like you, and you'll feel uncomfortable. If you don't care, you are an asshole.
If things get tense, try to get out of the situation without calling the cops. Nobody likes cops at a social gathering. If you can't do it without cops, shit got serious, and you need to call ALL the cops. If that happens often? Maybe it's you. Maybe you are trying to hang out with the wrong crowd and you should ask yourself why.
Ever been to a Hells Angels party? Why not? Do you feel you should be able to be there and make them all behave so you feel comfortable? Why don't you? Because the chances of getting it done are slim, and the risks are high. If you ride, but don't like Hells Angels, you join a different group, or start your own. It's still called life. Ya pick your battles.
There's no real difference in the behavior of geeks and jocks. The difference is in the reaction they get. (It's not a pick up line if it works.)
You have a right to your personal space. You don't have the right to demand everyone change their personality for your personal comfort. If that was true, geeks everywhere would be demanding changes.
Everyone is creepy to someone, including you, and you.
Notice, that all my comments were gender neutral. The same rules apply to both… or all six, depending on how you look at it.
"One last time: the problem that I am talking about is that saying "well, you've got to say no clearly" runs afoul of both established social norms and can put a woman at risk if she is dealing with someone likely to transgress her boundaries. If she says, "I'm not remotely interested in you, sorry" and she's dealing with is a jerk, that jerk is likely to just assault her."
And, if you don't reject him in unequivocal terms, that jerk is likely to just assault her. Now that we've established that jerks are jerks, have you any interest in interacting with the rest of us?
Or should we just assume that there is no way to make you happy, it's a foolish waste of time to try, and let you figure it out on your own?
You say "there are times when I can't adequately protect myself on my own. There are jerks out there who won't respect boundaries no matter what we do."
I say "Yes, there ARE jerks out there. They should be dealt with forcefully, as many times as it takes to drive home the point. If you are unable to deal with them yourself, ask for help.
you say "WE'VE BEEN DEMANDING HELP ALL ALONG, JACKASS!!!"
I say, "stop demanding and start asking, first of all. Second, here are the conditions under which help is forthcoming. It will be available from official sources such as con security, and unofficial sources like the immediate intercession of bystanders in your support."
You say, "No, I don't want to make any changes in MY behavior."
I say, "Good luck with that"
Seriously, Kat… I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with men who didn't/wouldn't/won't respect your boundaries. That really sucks. But it doesn't give you the right to demand anything from me, or anyone else who isn't a harasser/abuser, hasn't ever been a harasser/abuser, and doesn't intend in the future to be a harasser/abuser. Since that's the majority of men around you, you might want to start building allies instead of accusing everyone who asks anything of you of being harasser/abuser/rapists, supporting harasser/abuser/rapists, or supporting a status quo in which harasser/abuser/rapists exist.
"My experience suggests that the people who want their boundaries respected, and put forth firm signals about this, are the ones who are most likely to have those boundaries overrun."
They'll have a harder time doing this from the sidewalk in front of the con hotel.
Let's run through the steps instead of assuming.
1. Bad person starts interacting in a way that crosses good person's boundaries. Note: If they START at one of the indefensible acts, go directly to
2. Good person declares boundaries.
3. Bad person violates declared boundaries.
4. Good person enforces boundaries. If Good person is unable to do so alone, they may summon aid from bystanders or con security.
5. Depending on nature of offense, Bad person is either severely warned or is ejected forthwith.
6. If let off with a warning, any second offense involving any person triggers ejection
7. Once Bad person has been ejected, Good person enjoys the rest of the con untroubled by Bad person. (This, I believe, is the goal. No?)
Safeguards: What if Good person is not ENTIRELY good, and makes complaints on marginal cases? Answer: Good person gets a reputation for making complaints on marginal calls, and gets largely left alone.
What about events without witnesses? Answer: This remains tricky. I don't have an answer here. Since I'm assuming people with the "everyone's potentially out to get me", I'm going to assume that they will avoid being in a situation without witnesses.
What about events so significant as to be beyond con security, to the point of being actually criminal? Answer: Call the police.
It comes down to, if you can't handle the situation by yourself (it happens) CALL FOR HELP. How many people attending SF cons do so without a phone?
The possible solutions are few:
1. The people being assaulted voluntarily withdraw from events where it happens. (AKA, the gropers win)
2. The people being assaulted actively seek to identify malefactors, and non-assaulters assist, if necessary, in punishing the offense, typically by ejection.
3. The assaulters voluntarily stop the assaults.
4. Status quo.
I'm going to suggest that #3 seems unlikely, unless #2 gains traction first.
"Who exactly has advocated "treating all interactions between strangers of the opposite sex as hostile interactions until proven otherwise"?"
There have been several. Rather than naming names let us say that they should look to statements along the lines of "I have to protect my personal safety first, and if someone's feelings get hurt, too bad."
"I do not believe and no one has provided any evidence that any significant majority of con going males are sexual predators (or even straight up assholes.)"
"Repeated studies have shown that between 6-16% of men will admit to behaviours that meet legal definitions of rape/sexual assault so long as the questioners describe the behaviours without using the word "rape","
First off, 6-16% is not a "significant majority". It is a "significant minority". Second, I question the relevance of the statistic pending further review of methodology. Do the questions lead off with "Have you ever…" or "Do you now…"
Let's suppose the number of people who admit to "Have you ever…" type questions on the subject really is 1 in 6. How significant is that in predicting future behavior? What portion of the 1 in 6 are referring to a single incident? What portion of the 1 in 6 are referring to actions taken before reforming?
Analogy: If you ask a blind survey of people a survey that includes questions like "have you ever knowingly violated a law, including traffic laws?, and 90% answer "yes", does have relevence in evaluating whether one person currently plans to rob a bank?
Hell. I'm one of the 1 in 6. Have I ever persisted in pursuing a relationship despite repeatedly being rebuffed? Yes. I was young, stupid, and got bad advice. I hadn't learned yet.
Wow. Is that evidence that I'm the sort of repeat stalker/harasser all these women are complaining about? Not as much as the fact that over a history of attending con events that spans more than 30 years, not only have I not persisted in pursuing someone who rejected me at a con, I've never hit on anyone at a con, period (not counting the person I took with me, of course.)
One word: entitlement.
When I post this stuff, the anger is almost always variations on entitlement. "Well if I can't hit on women at work, how am I ever supposed to get laid?" "Well if she's going to wear that to a con, how am I not supposed to look or be turned on?" "Well if she wears that and we're turned on but she doesn't sleep with us, she's not playing fair!" "Well if she comes into our guild and doesn't do the girly things we want her to do, that's her own fault for being in a man's world." And so on.
Entitlement. The dude is entitled to get laid, to leer, to harass, to subjugate, to pigeonhole, and if anything or anyone tries to say he can't do any of that, that conflicts with his sense of entitlement so he gets really, really pissy.
@ anyone whiffled by my mocking of feminist buzzwords
My point was that while Ken in his OP predicted and mocked the usage of socially loaded shibboleth terms from the MRA/PUA side of things (White knight, Mangina, etc.), he quickly lapsed into the usage of terms from the other side (male entitlement), and I offered the rest of the set in the nature of internet spite. Immature perhaps, but irresistible.
As to the larger argument, I've been repeating myself too much, I think my useful contribution is drawing to a close. If I can make one point stick though, it is that objective rather than subjective standards are needed. Look through sexual harassment law, and note every instance of the word "unwanted" as a qualifier and you begin to see the problem.
Best of luck to you all in this thread, Ken certainly has hit on the formula for a long one.
James Pollock, you are misinterpreting tigtog's account of the research. The studies she's alluding to don't say that 6-13% of men (the 16% number is actually higher than the study conclusion) admitted to sexual harassment (such as pursuing a relationship after being rebuffed repeatedly); they say that 6-13% of men admitted to sexual assault, as long as you didn't use the phrases "sexual assault" or "rape". The questions the researchers asked included, among others: "Have you ever been in a situation where you tried, but for various reasons did not succeed, in having sexual intercourse with an adult by using or threatening to use physical force (twisting their arm, holding them down, etc.) if they did not cooperate?" and "Have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone, even though they did not want to, because they were too intoxicated (on alcohol or drugs) to resist your sexual advances (e.g., removing their clothes)?" Additionally, of that 6%-13%, more than 60% admit to multiple assaults. The studies are summarized here.
That is to say, somewhere between 6-13% of men, at least in the populations studied (naval ratings in one study, and college students with a median age of 26.5 in the other study (so older than your typical college population)) are rapists or attempted rapists. (That's somewhere between one in seven and one in sixteen men, for reference.) So if i'm in a room with 100 guys, my statistical calculation has to be that somewhere between six and thirteen of them is a rapist or attempted rapist, and furthermore that at least four of those are repeat (attempted or actual) rapists. And they don't come with signs on their foreheads.
Another related: Dear Twelve Rabid Weasels of SFWA, please shut the fuck up. by Mary Robinette Kowal, the now ex-VP of the SFWA.
The rabid weasels are a poisonous influence. And ken, I think this explains what makes them so angry. Do you expect rabid weasels to not be angry?
@ tigtog
Who has advocated treating all interactions between strangers as hostile interactions until proven otherwise? Well to start with, there was DRS up thread who appears to believe that every offer of a drink is a drugging and rape waiting to happen. Then there are people like yourself who trot out statistics like the one you just quoted (6%-16% of men admit to having committed legal assault or rape at some point in their lives) when I ask for evidence that a majority on con going males are sexual predators in waiting. Of course, when you quote that statistic, you fail to also quote the rest of those studies, which we can find in the link Adrienne helpfully provided. There we see that of those men you quote an even smaller number account for the vast majority of the problem and less then 10% were between strangers, which is in line with the BJS statistics I linked to up thread stating that nation wide, across all sexual assaults, 78% are between acquaintances.
Long story short, if we're going to quote statistics at each other, statistically you have much more to fear from your guy friends attending the con with you than you do from any random con goer.
@Lampie
You've over simplified to the detriment of your point. People absolutely have a right to demand that you change your behavior if you want to interact with them. And further, they absolutely have a right to demand decent behavior from you in general even if you don't want to interact with them. No woman should have to put up with walking through con halls and having "Nice tits" yelled at them any more than a geek should have to put up with walking through a mall and having "nerd" yelled at them. And women should no more have to fear being assaulted if they define their personal boundaries than any other person. Geeks go to cons and are open about their various geeky hobbies because they feel safe expressing themselves without fear of misbehavior by other con goers. Women geeks should absolutely be able to attend cons and express themselves without fear of misbehavior by other con goers either, whether that behavior is directed at their geekdom (fake geek girl) or their gender (cat calls, inappropriate touching). These are valid and real complaints that must be addressed.
@ Kimberly
Not even close. Are there some entitled assholes? Sure, there always are, but your casual dismissal of all anger as entitlement is just as bad.
@ Adrienne
See above as regards to which males at the con you should have more to fear from, but further as Mr. Pollock pointed out, while 6-13 of those guys may have committed a crime at some point in their life, that is not indicative of their current behavior.
Again, that is not to excuse their past behavior, but to give an analogy, when I was young my friends and I tore up the sod at our school stupidly (long story short, we figured we could pick it up in clumps and started chucking it at each other, basically a food fight with grass.) We likely did more than $250 damage which in my home state makes that felony vandalism. When I was older still I committed forgery, signing my parents name to a school document (which depending on interpretation, IANAL, could also have been a felony). In both cases I knew those acts were wrong before I did them. So if someone were to take a survey and ask me if I had ever intentionally committed vandalism or forgery, I would answer yes, and somewhere there would be a statistic that says that 20% of men admit to criminal vandalism or forgery. But I think we would both agree that to treat me (or any other random guy) as if I were imminently about to commit more vandalism or forgery at any time is unfair and a little unreasonable.
Lastly, no I admit, they don't come with signs on their foreheads. That is why I am asking, please set clear boundaries and then ask for help or call attention to when those clearly set boundaries have been violated. Since they don't come with signs on their forehead, I'm no more able to identify them than you are, so the only way I can help stop them is to have your boundaries clearly expressed and have their activity that crosses those boundaries be called out.
There is an idea running through some of these comments that is troubling.
I am referring to the idea that clearly stating one's boundaries or offering unequivocal denial of consent will decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped – or at the very least – not increase that likelihood. That idea has been baldly stated in some instances and implied in a great many others during the course of this discussion.
What is the basis behind this assumption? Is there any evidence to back it up? I cannot find such evidence or basis in the thread, but perhaps it is part of some class or book that I missed.
Since it is an underlying part of many of the strategies offered here to help the situation, it would seem to be an important question. I say that especially because I can think of quite a bit of basis – both in evidence and in theory – for why clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person may increase your overall odds of assault or rape.
"…treat me (or any other random guy) as if I were imminently about to commit more [violent crime] at any time…"
I've not seen anyone advocating treating half the human race as spring-loaded rape machines that might go off at any time. I'm sorry that you feel that anyone has advocated treating you like a spring-loaded rape machine. I wish you didn't; it's got to feel really horrible. If it is not clear, I am being completely sincere.
"When I post this stuff, the anger is almost always variations on entitlement."
OK. Let's have a look at your list.
"Well if I can't hit on women at work, how am I ever supposed to get laid?"
Hmmm. Yes, I see the problem when it's expressed like that. But this complaint also seems to be subsuming "If every time I try to talk to a woman at work, someone complains that I'm hitting on them, how am I supposed to develop any friendships?
"Well if she's going to wear that to a con, how am I not supposed to look or be turned on?"
Hmmm. No, this one's correct. YOU seem to be demanding an entitlement… "I should be able to dress however I want in public and to demand people to not look at me if I don't want them to." I don't think you're entitled to that.
"Well if she wears that and we're turned on but she doesn't sleep with us, she's not playing fair!"
Yes, I see the problem if it's phrased this way. But the "not playing fair" complaint is accurate, in a good many cases. If you expose your earlobe, and there's a guy that's totally turned on by earlobes, he's going to have to control himself. But if your costume consists of body paint and gumdrops, then yes, you HAVE invited attention. To invite attention and then complain about how much attention you're getting is not playing fair.
"Well if she comes into our guild and doesn't do the girly things we want her to do, that's her own fault for being in a man's world."
Oops. This is another one that's fine. If YOU want to join THEIR group, they're free to set any kind of entrance requirements they'd like, and then you're free to accept or decline the offered terms. If the "He-man no gurls aloud" club says you can't join in because you've got a vagina, that's their choice and their mistake to make. If they say "well, you can join, but only if you sweep the floor after the meeting", then you can join, but only if you sweep the floor after the meeting. And, if they say "you can join, but only if you sexually service each and every one of us", guess what? And, if they can do that, they can also say "you can join, but only if you don't object to sexist language and grossly distorted ideas about how the genders interact or should interact".
YOU do not have an entitlement to join any group you want on any terms you choose.
So, yeah. Entitlement.
"I am referring to the idea that clearly stating one's boundaries or offering unequivocal denial of consent will decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped – or at the very least – not increase that likelihood. That idea has been baldly stated in some instances and implied in a great many others during the course of this discussion.
What is the basis behind this assumption?"
If the goal is "exclude the jerks from specific events", a necessary first step is identifying who the jerks are. As has been noted before, they don't seem to carry signs that say "sexist jerk who is quite possibly a rapist". I am not able to pick them out of the crowd. I need help to do this. If the women who are affected by this aren't willing to report it (as immediately after the event as is consistent with their safety), then I (and people like me) are unable to help them.
If the goal is "make these jerks stop acting this way", again, a necessary first step is identifying the jerks (as above), followed by other necessary steps of applying negative consequences to undesired behavior(s). This is most effective when the negative consequences follow the undesired behavior as quickly in time as is possible. In most cases, the person who endures the undesired behavior may apply sufficient negative reinforcement him- or herself, but in extreme cases, additional help may be required and significant effort expended to bring the offenders into line. Invoking assistance from third-party necessitates a mode of communication which allows would-be intercessors to know quickly and reliably whether or not intercession is appropriate. If a would-be intercessor encounters a case in which the violation is obvious and the complaint timely, then they can select an appropriate action to take. If, however, the would be intercessor is faced with a situation in which the situation is such that the violation is not at all clear, then the intercessor's actions are ALSO not clear.
"Is there any evidence to back it up? I cannot find such evidence or basis in the thread, but perhaps it is part of some class or book that I missed."
Then you are dense. You should consult just about ANY textbook on operant conditioning and then try to catch up.
Setting clear boundaries and enforcing them (on your own or with help) may or may not reduce the likelihood that that particular person will attempt further indignity or harm upon your person in the short term. But in the longer term, as people who refuse to accept boundaries either A) become more and more excluded from events and activities you frequent, or B) become trained out of the offensive behaviors, then yes, it will become less and less likely that you will endure these types of behaviors directed at you.
Now. Let's turn the tables.
Gentlement who are not harassers and rapists, there is a problem with the status quo. There are women who are reporting that they are enduring these sorts of things. They are, as a result, hypervigilant and prone to be easily offended by behaviors which are not harassment or preludes to rape, but rather normal behaviors of men attempting to befriend new people who happen to have different sexual apparatus than their own. This is bad for us because they are less likely to be open to, or to accept, opportunities to communicate with us. Removing or controlling the harassers would seem to be in our interests. So how do we do that?
First off, if we're willing to accept that some women are just unapproachable because their past experiences have made them overwary to the point that they can't tell us from the harassers, we need do nothing, and allow the status quo to continue. If, however, we really do want to improve things for them and thereby for us, here's what we have to do:
First, I think we need to be impeccable in our approaches. Let there be no possibility of confusion between our behavior and the harassers'.
Second, stand ready to assist calls for aid, and to impose sanctions on harassers as they are identified. Allow no excuse for behavior that clearly and unambiguously crossed the line.
Third, tell the women who make unreasonable demands that they're making unreasonable demands. (Be prepared for pushback on this!)
Fourth, make sure that everyone can see the efforts being made. Progress will be slow at first, and it will take some time to see optimal results. Some people will even make claims that there are no results. This, however, is a long-term project with long-term goals.
@ James
"If the goal is "exclude the jerks from specific events", a necessary first step is identifying who the jerks are."
Except that the goal stated in my comment was to reduce the likelihood of someone being raped or assaulted, not to "exclude the jerks from specific events".
Here is what I wrote:
"I am referring to the idea that clearly stating one's boundaries or offering unequivocal denial of consent will decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped – or at the very least – not increase that likelihood."
Here is what you responded to:
I am referring to the idea that clearly stating one's boundaries or offering unequivocal denial of consent will decrease the likelihood of being jerks being at specific events – or at the very least – not increase that likelihood.
Those two paragraphs are not the same.
You do – kind of – address the actual comment here
"Setting clear boundaries and enforcing them (on your own or with help) may or may not reduce the likelihood that that particular person will attempt further indignity or harm upon your person in the short term. But in the longer term, as people who refuse to accept boundaries either A) become more and more excluded from events and activities you frequent, or B) become trained out of the offensive behaviors, then yes, it will become less and less likely that you will endure these types of behaviors directed at you."
Here you, kind of, get to my original comment.
With, again, the goal of reducing the likelihood of rape or assault how is the clear statement of boundaries *on its own* helpful? I will not argue that the enforcement part is helpful towards that goal, but is the actual statement itself?
Good intentions and a dollar or two will get you a cup of coffee. Clear statement of boundaries and enforcement of those boundaries will decrease your chances of being assaulted. I can agree with that.
But what does good intentions and the clear statement of boundaries get you?
No cup of coffee, that's for sure.
You provide a decent strategy for excluding jerks from specific events, but
Stupid touch pad. Please disregard
"You provide a decent strategy for excluding jerks from specific events, but"
It might be true, but is an artifact of my finger grazing submit comment before I intended.
"Except that the goal stated in my comment was to reduce the likelihood of someone being raped or assaulted, not to "exclude the jerks from specific events"."
Oh. Sorry. Here's a 100% foolproof solution that not only reduces the likelihood of someone being raped or assaulted at events. Stop holding events.
If we want to limit the effect to just women, well… stop allowing women to attend the events.
If we want to extend the effect to more than just specific events, then we just keep women and men entirely separate… purdah.
Now, reducing the number of incidents of abuse by reducing the number of abusers over time DOES reduce the likelihood of being raped or assaulted. It doesn't do it RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND, but it does achieve that goal.
The converse, NOT setting and enforcing clear boundaries, ALSO does not seem to reduce the likelihood of someone getting raped or assaulted, now or ever. If you're satisfied with status quo, you ARE correct that we need ask for no change in behavior from women (or anyone else victimized in any way.) Just keep doing what you're doing and experiencing the same results.
The only reason I can see for not standing up for yourself and asking other people nearby to help you do it, is either A) there is no other person nearby, or B) you assume that those other people will side against you.
Now, I will admit that if you are alone with someone intent on abusing you and you have insufficient resources to deter the abuser, you have limited options. The only advice I have to give is "avoid being alone with abusive persons", but you already knew that. (Coincidentally, this is ALSO the recommendation for avoiding false accusations of abuse… avoid being alone with people who falsely accuse.) As for the second… statistics show that 6 out of 7 dudes have NEVER sexually assaulted someone.
@Mr. Pollock
Ooh hold up, I missed this part.
"Then you are dense. You should consult just about ANY textbook on operant conditioning and then try to catch up."
Stating clear boundaries and providing definite denials of consent on their own do nothing to change the consequences of breaking those boundaries or ignoring those denials.
Operant conditioning works by using consequences to modify behavior. This goes back to enforcement obviously with statement of boundaries have little or nothing to do with the modification.
Perhaps you should look at those texbooks again
PS, Mark, I think you missed the testimonial evidence given above.
To paraphrase it:
I didn't set boundaries, and I got raped.
My sister did, and she did not.
@James Pollock
"The converse, NOT setting and enforcing clear boundaries, ALSO does not seem to reduce the likelihood of someone getting raped or assaulted, now or ever."
Ah. So you agree that the clear statement of boundaries and denial of consent on their own does not decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped.
Where we disagree then is on what effect NOT providing those boundaries and denials of consent to every approaching person will have. I disagree with your ALSO, in other words.
Before I provide a basis for that disagreement, am I following your position correctly so far?
@James Pollock
"PS, Mark, I think you missed the testimonial evidence given above.
To paraphrase it:
I didn't set boundaries, and I got raped.
My sister did, and she did not."
Correlation is not causation.
Maybe you *really* should look at those textbooks again.
@ Mark
Well first and foremost, any safety and self defense class in the nation will teach you that being assertive and defining clear limits is one of the many steps to take to prevent being assaulted. Attackers of all stripes tend to go after targets they perceive as weak, being assertive and aggressive makes you a less weak target. It's also why they tell you to be aware of your surroundings. But you don't have to take my word for it, RPI will tell you so:
Correlation also does not imply causation.
(lol, maybe I should brush up a bit myself. Or type slower.)
PPS, Mark, let's examine the full dynamics in play here.
Given: The problem is that there are some people who act in abusive ways (of which we're currently addressing a subset.
I am responsible for my own actions. I do not do any of those offensive things. My responsibility in this matter has been met.
But wait! say the victims of abuse. The abuse persists!
See, at this point they're asking (well, the polite ones are asking… the shrill ones are demanding) that I go beyond my responsibility and take responsibility for OTHER PEOPLE'S ACTIONS. I'm willing to do this, if my conditions for doing so are met. Some of those conditions relate to my sense of ethics, some to my sense of fair play, and some to protecting myself. One of those conditions is that abusers act or acts was/were clear and unambiguous. If he stepped over the line because she kept erasing and redrawing the line, no. If he stepped over the line because she didn't tell him where it was (or that there WAS a line), no. To address a point that's been raised a few times already, if he stepped over the line because he didn't know he's not supposed to step over lines, yes… but the response is different than if it was intentional.
So… am I demanding that anyone change their behavior? Yeah. Dudes who handle women without getting permission first need to knock that shit off.
Am I demanding that women who find themselves targeted by abusers change their behavior? No… unless they want me to go beyond my responsibility to manage my own behavior and assist in managing someone else's behavior. So anyone who doesn't care if I go beyond what I'm responsible for or not remains absolutely and totally free to behave in any way she likes.
@Grandy Actually the whole thing went away when I told the whole story.
The actual problem is that they could not legally, and would not unofficially, tell me who registered the complaint. So I was accused without redress. But I knew everything that had happened in my life in the previous few weeks.
So I said, "if the complainant is Brad, well let me tell you about the last week…"
The real problem with the entire body of law and policy is the "anonymity" assured to the complainer. Barring the exact knowledge of the allegation and accuser, well "Harassment" complaints can not be answered.
A sexual harassment complaint is like being nuked from orbit. Any attempt to blindly defend oneself is like talking to the cops during an arrest. There is (normally) no way the victim of the complaint can speak without grave risk.
In my case I risked. But that's because I am and always have been "mostly harmless".
The average harassment complaint victim is simply told "sometime in the last two weeks someone we will not name was made uncomfortable so whatever you did, which we are not going to enumerate, is something you must not do again."
There is no answer to that crap.
Meanwhile, once one person has complained you have been tarred with a dirty brush and you ever after live under a microscope. It becomes part of your permanent record.
Basically the whole "harassment" body of law has removed the right to confront your accuser or be told with specificity the charges against you. It's impossible to respond. The entire HR system is broken for fear of being sued by the initial complainer.
@James Pollock
Oh I agree with you that there is a – for want of a better word – *good* in setting up clear and unequivocal boundaries and unequivocal denial of consent. Such clarification is useful for many of the reasons you describe and more than those besides.
As you say, before you take responsibility for another's actions:
"One of those conditions is that abusers act or acts was/were clear and unambiguous."
Setting clear boundaries and clear denials of consent would obviously help you to meet that condition for action which is not a bad thing.
But for all those good things and benefits there is a cost.
Not every time, it's more like a cost that gets applied Russian Roulette style – randomly but reliably. That cost is that clearly stating ones boundaries and denials of consent can lead to an increased likelihood of rape or assault.
Honestly, I like some of your ideas, but I think your are downplaying at least that one very real downside of implementing them.
"Ah. So you agree that the clear statement of boundaries and denial of consent on their own does not decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped."
No. As explained above, it does, as part of a system.
"Where we disagree then is on what effect NOT providing those boundaries and denials of consent to every approaching person will have."
The immediate effect is that my assistance in applying negative re-inforcement is not forthcoming. To the extent that such negative re-inforcement is available from other sources, as in the vast majority of cases where the target of the unwanted behavior applies negative reinforcement immediately and directly to deter the behavior, there is no net effect of my withholding of assistance. In the very, VERY small number of cases where my withholding of assistance results in no deterrence for the abuser, there is an effect. Over time, these tiny effects accumulate to create an observable net change in behavior.
"Stating clear boundaries and providing definite denials of consent on their own do nothing to change the consequences of breaking those boundaries or ignoring those denials."
Stating clear boundaries, etc. either make a specific range of negative reinforcements available or not available to the person wishing to condition the behavior out of a specific subject. That may or may not change the consequences of breaking those boundaries, depending on whether or not the person wishes to make use of that range of consequences. In most cases, either they did not, or can find a suitable replacement method to apply.
Stop trying to isolate one part of the system, it isn't working.
"Operant conditioning works by using consequences to modify behavior. This goes back to enforcement obviously with statement of boundaries have little or nothing to do with the modification."
Yes. I already read the textbook, thanks, and don't need a refresher on basic definitions.
You're insisting on a needless distinction. Setting clear boundaries is not a requirement if you plan to defend them yourself without assistance. It is a requirement if you'd like someone else to enforce your boundaries for you.
Since one of the complaints is "this happens so often and nobody does anything about it", apparently third-party assistance is both wanted and needed as part of the enforcement part of the solution. Well, obtaining that assistance has a price. Pay the price or stop asking for assistance… either one's good.
You said you couldn't find any evidence of something in the thread. I pointed out evidence offered in the thread. So you want to quibble with me about it. No thanks, your complaint as to the accuracy of the evidence is with the person who offered it, not with me. I just pointed it out for you since you missed it.
"Not every time, it's more like a cost that gets applied Russian Roulette style – randomly but reliably. That cost is that clearly stating ones boundaries and denials of consent can lead to an increased likelihood of rape or assault. "
Showing up in the first place increased the likelihood of rape or assault. Hell, STAYING ALIVE increased the likelihood of rape or assault.
There is no right to safety. Life is risk.
There are some odd truths about sexual harassment in the work place and the way people process themselves as compared to the world. Things simply are not as they seem almost all of the time. I first leaned this while having long conversations about what the (pre-9/11) military taught soldiers about interrogation.
Skipping most of it, the "harassment-free workplace" is virtually impossible, particularly if you've ever felt harassed.
First, read item ten in this link : http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature
Then check out something I wrote about eleven years ago (and forgive the spelling and grammar, it was live journal and I was young. 8-) http://bitobear.livejournal.com/4653.html
The simple fact is that men _do_ harass. That's what trash-talking on the field of play is all about. The rules are what the rules are. Everyone needs to be aware of this instead of trying to imagine an ideal where the women act like men, and the men act like women in an attempt to approach some androgynous ideal.
Then nobody will be happy but it will be fair.
Mark, the problem you're describing is known as "agency cost", where the interests of specific people doesn't align with a larger organization of which they are representing.
In this case, there is a cost to an individual woman of standing up for herself and all of the sisterhood. It takes time. People who complain can expect to get pushback, both deserved and undeserved. There may be risk of retaliation, of varying severity. But the class (women) benefits every time a valid report is made.
Thus, each individual woman must decide "do the benefits for all women, including me, make it worth the cost, which is borne only by me?" The success of the movement depends largely on the number of class members willing to put the benefits to the class ahead of the costs to the individual.
For an easy parallel, look at the early civil rights movement. The people who participated risked penalties for involvement up to and including death, which many experienced. They were tear-gassed, beaten, jailed, murdered. They kept at it anyway because they thought the end goal was worth it. There were enough people who put class goals ahead of personal hardship that they were able to make the gains we see today. They were not able to eradicate racism. But they did achieve a substantial improvement.
Substantial gain is possible, here, too, but it won't come for free.
@James Pollock
"The converse, NOT setting and enforcing clear boundaries, ALSO does not seem to reduce the likelihood of someone getting raped or assaulted, now or ever."
"No. As explained above, it does, as part of a system"
So for the first quote from you, setting boundaries on its own does not work. For the second, setting boundaries as part of a system does work. I don't know why you included the "no" though, those two stances do not contradict each other.
You say the clear setting of boundaries allows *you* to act which would decrease the chance of assault or rape. Probably. But then that removes enforcement from the equation again doesn't it? The enforcement part again looks like the key.
The clear setting of boundaries could still be said to be required for enforcement to take place, but that does not stand up to even the most cursory of examinations.
I do not need to tell my neighbors that I do not wish to be robbed for them to contact the police or stop somebody opening from crawling into one of my windows. They could be mistaken in there actions of course. Maybe that person crawling in is me after losing my keys. Maybe it is a plainclothes officer raiding my house for valid reasons. Maybe a lot of strange circumstances…
But none of those maybes does or should preclude my neighbors from enforcing a boundary that has been entirely unstated.
I could give you similar examples with fire, vandalism, or murder. In fact with any crime against myself or my property, I can expect enforcement of my desires though I have not breathed one word to clarify what those desires are. Enforcement of boundary and rule still takes place.
Are rape and assault somehow different from these other crimes?
"Stop trying to isolate one part of the system, it isn't working."
Odd. Isolating parts of a system works pretty well for just about any system. Assuming a part of a system is crucial just because it is part of the system is akin to magical thinking. If part of my car does not work to the level I want, I can improve the system by taking that part out, replacing it, improving it, or designing a better overall system.
In short, I think you have a bad carburetor. It needs a replacement or an upgrade to fuel injection.
Depending on what I want the system to do a given part can be crucial, benign, useless, or even detrimental.
For *your* system, I can readily see how a victim clearly asserting their boundaries helps you. It is also a decent part for keeping jerks out of a specific event. I question whether it is as useful a part for decreasing the chance of rape and assault.
That strikes me as a wilfully uncharitable interpretation of what DRS actually said. Being aware that some drink offers might be hostile is no more an assumption that all interactions with strangers are hostile than your average pedestrian checking that the oncoming driver has actually seen one before stepping out on the crosswalk is an assumption that all drivers are likely to recklessly disregard pedestrian crossings – there's a commonly acknowledged risk and a routine risk mitigation action, that's all.
Cons are one of many places (also bars) where strangers become acquaintances, so your point of rebuttal is not quite the lay-down mazaire you might think. Serial sexual predators specialise in making new acquaintances and then then slyly, insinuatingly and manipulatively isolating their new acquaintances to perform the attack, therefore cons/meetings/bars are ideal places for such serial sexual predators to operate, and are likely IMO (and I believe also in the opinion of many law enforcement bodies) to actively attract serial sexual predators due to exactly how cons lower the social-inhibitions threshold for strangers becoming acquaintances.
* * *
I'm troubled by the emphasis in this discussion on sexual assault and sexual harassment as if these are the only behavioural targets of anti-harassment policies (and yes I know it's how the OP couched the issue). The truth is that there is a wide range of harassing behaviours which can ruin people's experience of a con, most of these harassing behaviours are not sexual in nature, and experiencing any form of harassment often leads to a decision not to attend a con again (and discommending the con experience to others), which means that the con loses ticket sales and grows more slowly than it otherwise would.
To attendees who like the cons just as they are and have no harassment experiences ruining their fun I do understand the temptation to say (paraphrasing James Pollock above) that if "the women" don't like "the men" as they are then "the women" should just butt out instead of demanding that "the men" change in ways "the men" perceive as unreasonably restrictive, but is the loss of those ticket sales what the con itself wants? (scarequotes in my paraphrase to emphasise that harassment is not just a gender problem).
In the end it comes down to bums on seats – most cons are going to respond to agitation for anti-harassment policies however they conclude will have the most positive impact on their box-office. Potential attendees will then make their ticket purchases based on the con responses. We'll soon see which path works for which cons.
@James
"Showing up in the first place increased the likelihood of rape or assault. Hell, STAYING ALIVE increased the likelihood of rape or assault.
There is no right to safety. Life is risk.
Absolutely.
Risking rape or assault is a cheap price to pay for the wonder of being alive.
Risking rape or assault is almost as cheap a price to pay for being what you want to be and doing what you want to do in life.
That price – risking rape and assault – gets pretty darn expensive though if all you are paying for is for someone to know exactly what your boundaries are.
Yes, you pays your money and you takes your chances, as they say. That's hardly a reason to pay more for crappier chances.
@James Pollock
Regarding your comment beginning with this:
"Mark, the problem you're describing is known as "agency cost", where the interests of specific people doesn't align with a larger organization of which they are representing."
I agree wholeheartedly – including the parts not quote above. We can agree on this at least.
P.S. Thanks to Adrienne upthread for posting links to the studies I mentioned and providing the accurate figures to correct my misremembering.
@Mark
I would be interested in seeing the evidence you mentioned here regarding women rebuffing men's advances increasing the chances that said man will commit assault/rape. The only circumstances I can come up with similar to this require the man being willing to rape them from the start and therefore the chances were not altered at all. That would seem to indicate a means of adequate self defense and alerting of appropriate authorities is necessary.
I am also curious as to the method of handling such situations that you are recommending. From that comment, it would seem that you believe appearing afraid and unsure will result in lower odds of assault/rape.
"Risking rape or assault is a cheap price to pay for the wonder of being alive.
Risking rape or assault is almost as cheap a price to pay for being what you want to be and doing what you want to do in life.
That price – risking rape and assault – gets pretty darn expensive though if all you are paying for is for someone to know exactly what your boundaries are."
This would be a clever response if A) the amount of risk was the same in each case, or even REMOTELY SIMILAR, and B) the result was anywhere as trivial as you lay it out to be.
Your density exceeds my interest in further probing it.
@JR
"I would be interested in seeing the evidence you mentioned here regarding women rebuffing men's advances increasing the chances that said man will commit assault/rape."
Clearly stating ones boundaries to all who approach is not the same thing as a woman "rebuffing men's advances". So I'm not really sure what you are asking.
"I am also curious as to the method of handling such situations that you are recommending. From that comment, it would seem that you believe appearing afraid and unsure will result in lower odds of assault/rape."
From which comment? I made quite a few. And how does not stating your boundaries to all who approach equate to looking "afraid and unsure"?
If the way I stated it was somehow confusing or ambiguous, then let's go with your exact words, specifically the last paragraph in the post of yours that I previously linked to.
As to the second part, I was referring to the last sentence of that paragraph. I admit to laziness on my part when determining an opposite for being "clear" and "firm". I am open to correction if that was not what you intended to imply.
@James
"This would be a clever response if A) the amount of risk was the same in each case, or even REMOTELY SIMILAR, and B) the result was anywhere as trivial as you lay it out to be."
The amount of risk entailed in being alive is massive – it is essentially all of the risk there is – but the benefit is larger than the risk.
The amount of risk entailed in being who you are and doing what you want to do is pretty darn big – but the benefit is larger than the risk.
The amount of risk entailed in clearly stating your boundaries to all is very small indeed – but the benefit is smaller still.
Of course the levels of risk and benefit are wildly different for those three cases. That was the point. As for trivializing, I was not the one to dismiss a very serious concern about risking rape and assault by using that old cliche "Life is risk".
@Mark:
I think it was the comment here: http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/#comment-1074839
that you then (may?) have rereferenced elsewhere, where you said:
"I am referring to the idea that clearly stating one's boundaries or offering unequivocal denial of consent will decrease the likelihood of being assaulted or raped – or at the very least – not increase that likelihood…What is the basis behind this assumption? Is there any evidence to back it up? I cannot find such evidence or basis in the thread, but perhaps it is part of some class or book that I missed…I say that especially because I can think of quite a bit of basis – both in evidence and in theory – for why clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person may increase your overall odds of assault or rape."
I believe you're being asked for the basis that you have for that assertion of an "increase [in] overall odds of assault or rape".
"The amount of risk entailed in clearly stating your boundaries to all is very small indeed – but the benefit is smaller still."
Well, if driving the abusers from the field or forcing them to change their habits is such a small benefit… and the benefit to me is even smaller, I guess we're off the hook for worrying about whether it happens or not.
Mark — part of the problem is that your unexpressed desires and preferences are probably not as universal as the nearly universal desire not to have someone crawling in your bedroom window, yet you expect others to read your mind and discern them.
@tigtog
Normally I would agree with you, but:
a) during the course of that conversation I repeatedly made it clear that I view any non consensual contact and or drugging to be beyond the pale and I was still told that the mere act of offering a drink is offensive and harassing because of date rape drugs.
b) I am disinclined to give any charitable interpretation to any person who after I gave them the benefit of the doubt and clarified I was not talking about previously prepared drinks but the offer to purchase I drink proceeded to insult me because I disagreed with them and then ended the conversation quite rudely.
That said, you can't speak for what DRS has intended (nor do I expect you to), nor has DRS saw fit to clarify the statements anymore, nor is it really appropriate to be discussing someone who is no longer involved in the conversation.
I am happy to accept that you do not believe in treating every interaction as hostile (though again, your statistics quoting lends to that interpretation), and I am happy to continue our discussion from that point of view if we are in agreement, though we might have to spend a it more time figuring out what you intend by your quoted statistics for clarity sake.
To start, while I don't know the exact definition the BJS used (its not listed in that report), they list the acquaintances under the heading "close or casual" which at least as I was raised doesnt involve someone you meet that day at a bar or con. Close acquaintance to me would be say a regular co-worker, who I perhaps have had a company lunch with from time to time. Casual to me still implies more contact that one meeting and a couple of drinks.
Now here you and I are in almost complete agreement. I think the focus on sexual assault in these discussions detracts from the discussion because I think we can all agree that there is and should be no acceptance of assault at all. It's part of the reason why I've been talking about offering drinks and starting conversations and social awkwardness, because these things are where the biggest contention is, where us men need the women to establish clear boundaries and help us find and route out bad behavior that is less criminal.
And we do need to have discussions about whether activities really are harassing or just awkwardness, and how to best handle solving them both. Because there are some things that do need to change, there are some things that just need to be accounted for, and yes, there are some things that don't need to change, that are really normal human behavior and not threatening even if some people who engage in those same activities have done worse things. If you're willing, I'm happy to drop the sexual assault discussion with the agreement that we both agree its wrong and criminal, regardless of the boundaries that have or haven't been set, and I'm happy to have a new conversation over other activities that are viewed as harassing or fun ruining.
@Mark
No one needs you to establish a clear boundary on breaking into your home because that boundary is fairly universal. Likewise, no one here is asking for a clear boundary to stop sexual assault (with the caveat that we have to see it. You wouldn't be mad if your neighbor didn't call the cops on a break in he didn't see, why would you be mad if people don't stop gropings they don't see and no one calls out when they happen?).
But, as a society we do require you to put up a sign if you don't want anyone at all to ever come up to your front door unless explicitly invited, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that if you go to a con and don't want to be social (which yes, might include being approached by members of the opposite sex) that you have to explicitly declare that boundary and that it isn't assumed.
@tigtog
In the interest of fairness, I found the definitions the BJS uses (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tdtp). It appears that whether an assault by someone who offered to buy you a drink falls into the casual acquaintance or stranger category would depend heavily on how the victim reports it unless names are never exchanged in which case I presume it would fall under stranger (under the "identifiable by sight only")
@TM and htom
"No one needs you to establish a clear boundary on breaking into your home because that boundary is fairly universal."
So no one is capable of acting to prevent an assault or rape on another because unlike other crimes their own judgement is insufficient to provide them with the impetus to act. I disagree.
A person may enter my home with consent. They may not enter it without my consent. As your say, that particular boundary is pretty universal. A person may use my body with my consent. They may not use it without my consent. I believe this is an equally universal set of boundaries.
And yet, someone showing signs (unclear though they may be) of breaking into my home, planning to break into my home or damaging it, is enough for my neighbors to intervene.
At the same time, if someone shows signs (unclear though they may be) of breaking into my body, planning to break into my body, or damaging my body I can assume no intervention will take place because… I might want it?
Maybe both of you thought I said harassment instead of rape and assault? If so I can understand the confusion.
"A person may enter my home with consent. They may not enter it without my consent. As your say, that particular boundary is pretty universal."
Yes.
Now. There's a stranger on the street near your home, wearing a hoodie and carrying a bag of Skittles. Should I shoot him now? Should I wait until I see him in your yard? Do I have to see him actually enter your house? How am I to know that you have invited someone over?
YOU have the right to determine who enters your house, and the person primarily responsible for seeing that only people you authorize enters the house is you. What gives you the right to demand that *I* defend your house at all? Hell… You actually haven't given ME permission to enter your property, so I CAN'T intervene.
Now, what is the proper remedy for trespass. It's ejectment, accomplished with whatever force is reasonable and sufficient to accomplish the removal. But pretty close to nobody uses force to remove trespassers from another person's yard without the explicit call to aid of the property owner. They might call the property owner, they might call the police, but if someone's in your house, they're a guest until you say otherwise.
I don't know you. That guy climbing in the second story window of your house might be your kid, or your daughter's boyfriend, or might even be YOU. So, no, I'm not going to jump in and tackle that person even if it looks like a burglary to me, because that would expose me to risk of being the wrongdoer (physical danger, too. The amound of physical danger I'm willing to subject myself to varies considerably on circumstance. If I'm in a little-used hotel hallway, and I hear a woman yelling "No! Get off me! Stop!" and then come around a corner to a woman pinned against the wall by a guy with his hand up her skirt, I'm on it. But if I walk around a corner of a little-used hotel hallway and JUST see the guy with a hand up her skirt, and she says nothing… well, that's a couple that couldn't afford a room.
@mark
I am really and truly getting sick of repeating myself over and over and over again. So allow me to say this one more time, please read it carefully because I would really like it to be the last time I have to say it:
You have an absolute, 100% god (or other chosen deity) given right to be secure in your person. No other person on this planet has the right to touch you in any way shape or form absent your positive consent. Any person who violates the well known boundary of touching another individual without their consent can and rightfully should be stopped and dealt with in whatever manner is appropriate and using whatever means necessary to stop them up to and including lethal force. As a decent human being, if I see someone violating this boundary I will step in to put a stop to it if necessary even at the cost of my own personal safety, and even though I am under no legal obligation to do so (just as your neighbor is under no obligation to stop someone from breaking into your home). Doing so is a moral obligation imposed upon me by my upbringing.
Are you clear on this?
I am not however, able to stop every hidden groping that might occur at a con, in part because by definition it is hidden. I can not stop what I can not see. I am also not going to step in between you and every member of the opposite sex that approaches you or that you approach on the assumption that you or they are intending on violating the aforementioned boundary. If you wish to have me step in and do so for every potential interaction, I am reasonably going to ask you to clearly and definitively define your new (and non standard) boundary so that I can be perfectly clear about what boundary you would like me to defend. I should also note that if you want me to do this for every potential interaction, I'm likely going to ask for payment for my services, and preferably up front as I came to the con to enjoy myself, not to prevent you from experiencing social interactions at a social event. Please note that the foregoing sentence was a light harted comment and it should not be taken to imply that I will demand payment before stepping in when I see sexual assault taking place.
Do you understand? If not, please cite the specific sentence which is unclear to you and explain why it is unclear. I do not intend to keep defending myself against charges against me which are false, or misunderstood as regards the above statements so please clarify now or I will assume going forward that you have read and understood the foregoing. Any further misrepresentations of my position as regards the above statements on your part will then be assumed to be both willful and malicious and will result in the immediate termination of any further discussion between us.
@Grifter
"I believe you're being asked for the basis that you have for that assertion of an "increase [in] overall odds of assault or rape".
That's kind of what I figured, but objected to "rebuffing men's advances" being equated to "clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person."
It was a bit too large of a reframing for me to respond. Also, I was waiting for evidence to be provided for the converse position.
As for my basis for stating what I actually said, here goes.
Clearly and unequivocally setting your boundaries for all approaching will, given time, mean clearly and unequivocally setting your boundaries for someone who desires to assert power over you (or those close to you) and would challenge that assertion of power.
Now if we assume rape or assault are about sex, then no harm is done by this. Setting your boundaries works quite well in stopping someone from having sex with you. Unfortunately, dealing with rape or assault with that framework has proven fairly unreliable at best and works as a fairly poor predictor.
For example, if rape is about sex, we should expect to see rape victims for heterosexuals only among members of the opposite sex, yet this is clearly not the case. We should also expect to see rapists attacking someone who they found sexually attractive almost exclusively. Unless government and military personnel living in oppressive governments are mostly attracted to POWs or political prisoners then that element also goes counter to prediction. A torturer who uses rape or assault would need to find his victims attractive – again, that prediction is not borne out by results. Finally we would not expect someone to be raped because of their associations as might happen if, say, the spouse or lover of a rival was targeted for assault or rape – yet that does happen quite a bit. Rapes would not be predicted to occur without visible signs of arousal – yet they do.
A far better framework – better in the sense that it is much more reliable in identifying who might be a potential rapist or assaulter – is to look at rape and assault as being all about power. This framework handles the contradictions of evidence for the other framework easily.
With that in mind, what is the best plan in the following situation.
You are approached by someone your instinct tells you is a rapist or someone who would assault you. To avoid being raped or assaulted what should you do first:
a) find an escape route and use it
b) find backup / use the backup you have for protection
c) make a workable story to defuse the situation or to extricate yourself from the situation – lie if necessary
d) clearly tell them your boundaries in the hope that your instincts are wrong and that they do not want to assault or rape you
e) Stall until you can find backup, escape, or a means to defuse the situation.
f) attack, if you think you can take them down
Regardless of how you answer this question, it should be apparent that some of those responses – *especially* when used as the first response – carry more risks than others. F) obviously carries risk but may be a may be a good idea when none of the other options are workable. E) also carries a risk because it reveals your hand, so to speak. Declaring your boundaries clearly to all who approach could easily be seen as a suspicion that the person approaching intends harm.
If the person does not intend harm, no problem outside of possibly hurting their feelings. If the person does intend harm, they may use the time you spend stating your boundaries to cut you off from backup or escape. Stalling and attempts to defuse the situation are drastically handicapped as options too, because now the rapist/assaulter knows what their victim suspects.
Is stopping someone who desires to prove their power over you by declaring your power *without first finding support* a good plan?
Their is nothing inherently wrong with declaring your boundaries. But saying that one should do this at the onset of any approach is dubious advice at best.
Sure it helps all the people who do not want to rape the boundary setter – they know clearly where they stand, which is nice I guess. It also helps the rapist/assaulter – they now know the mindset of their victim without having revealed any plans of their own.
It helps the boundary setter to not be raped by people who just want sex too, but that help could be used after the other options are exhausted, *not* at the expense of making the other options less workable.
In short, as a last ditch attempt to escape harm, declaring your boundaries is better than nothing. As an opening gambit it is risky.
Now. With all that said, what is the basis for the idea in this thread that "clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person" will do any good at all against someone who does not care about either boundaries or consent?
@TM
"As a decent human being, if I see someone violating this boundary I will step in to put a stop to it if necessary even at the cost of my own personal safety, and even though I am under no legal obligation to do so (just as your neighbor is under no obligation to stop someone from breaking into your home). Doing so is a moral obligation imposed upon me by my upbringing."
Excellent. It is good to know that the clear and unequivocal defining of boundaries is not necessary for you to render assistance when you believe a crime is or could take place
For htom my "unexpressed desires and preferences [to not be raped or assaulted] are probably not as universal as the nearly universal desire not to have someone crawling in your bedroom window,"
For Mr. Pollock the assistance is conditional on the victim declaring clear boundaries.
"One of those conditions is that abusers act or acts was/were clear and unambiguous. If he stepped over the line because she kept erasing and redrawing the line, no."
It is good to know your actions are dictated by your judgement and ethics, not the action or inaction of others.
And when did I accuse you of anything?
As for making charges against you, I made none.
@James Pollock
"What gives you the right to demand that *I* defend your house at all?"
Nothing.
Fortunately I never made any such demand or claimed any such right. You have no obligation to defend me or anybody else from any crime outside of your own ethics, judgement, and deity of choice.
@Mark
Thank you for that response, however indirect.
My reason for making the inverse statement was that while you have not yet stated a beneficial means of dealing with the subject of this conversation, you did say that the methods proposed by James and others was of negative benefit. I did ask for clarification. And I'm still waiting on the evidence you mentioned that supports your characterization of their stance as well.
I'm afraid you've wandered away from the convention with this. What booth does this take place at again?
Does the scenario you created only have the rapist and victim present or are they in a public space (like at a convention)? If they are alone, the scenario should probably start earlier (the initial interaction would be nice). If they are in a public area, how exactly does the rapist follow through with his intentions before the victim has a chance to alert people to the problem (rape whistle, shouting, etc. are clear statements that a situation is untoward)?
Ignoring those little nits, it would also seem that you have declared every option you listed to be of negative benefit in your scenario. What solution do you propose for this situation?
In a social gathering where there are bound to be witnesses, it does a lot of good. You don't hear of many people getting raped in the mall fountain during peak hours. I am quite sure that anything of the nature happening in such a crowded public place would result in a swift arrest, speedy trial, and lots of turnabout in prison.
Mark, I though you were talking about the general "I'm feeling harrassed" complaint. Rape and attempted rape I've already interfered with, once the lady didn't appreciate it. We agreed that some fantasies should not be enacted in public places; the police were not amused in any of the cases.
Your list
I have problems with.
Move to Condition Yellow:
a) you should always know your escape routes. When the attack has begun, it's already far to late to look for one. You should be using at least one of them.
b) you should find your backup before, too. Speed dial is your friend. Recording is your friend. Think before you're attacked, so you can react rather than having to think.
c) have dialogs ready before hand.
d) think about your boundaries and how you'll express them.
Now you're ready for the con. Is there a pattern here? Be prepared.
d) you know how to do this. You've practiced. You sound confident. Some (most?) are embarrassed, stammer an apology, and hide from you the rest of the con. (For some, this is a scheme, but you won't know which until they attack later.)
e) You don't need to stall and think. You've already thought. DO!
f) Surprise is the best tactic. Being assertive and confident, you can play shy and lull your attacker in to be finished and held for the authorities. (Or pull up Command Voice and try to take charge; this works better on recruits than goblins, however.)
Or you can wander around in Condition White and be blindsided.
"Being aware that some drink offers might be hostile is no more an assumption that all interactions with strangers are hostile than your average pedestrian checking that the oncoming driver has actually seen one before stepping out on the crosswalk is an assumption that all drivers are likely to recklessly disregard pedestrian crossings"
Yes. And if you're a driver, it's perfectly permissible to drive near pedestrians. It only becomes a punishable offense if you _hit_ one. Pedestrians have an absolute right not to be hit by drivers, but not to demand that any driver whose presence on the road they object to must depart immediately from the road, just because of their own subjective fear.
Some pedestrians may have disproportionate fears about being hit by cars. Especially if they've previously experienced either an actual impact or a near-miss. It can be said that their fear is, if not objectively reasonable then at least understandable. But it still doesn't give them the right to force other people off the road.
Of course, this analogy has some flaws. For example, while I'd have to guess it's pretty rare for a pedestrian to _prefer_ crossing a street with a bunch of cars in it, it is not especially rare for patrons of a bar to actively desire impromptu interactions with other patrons of the same bar. It's not universal, of course, and anyone who expresses a wish to be left alone should indeed be left alone…but that's never been in dispute, here. All that the argument is about is whether or not the mere act of approaching a person in not merely a public place but a public place whose traditional raison d'etre _specifically includes interaction with strangers_ ought to be a punishable offense in the absence of any visible indication or explicit communication by the approached individual that they do not wish to interact.
Most men are not rapists. And indeed, most conversational overtures at an SF con are not sexual come-ons of any sort. I would argue that a person who fears that every conversational overture is a prelude to an attempted rape is unreasonably afraid, but the reasonableness or lack thereof of their fear is irrelevant…if they do not wish to interact, they do have and ought to have every right to not interact.
But branding everyone who fails to _guess_ that a person spending their time in an environment designed for social interaction does not wish to interact socially as "creepers" and throwing them out of cons on that basis does not seem just.
@Mark, that is a list for when someone is ALREADY feeling actively threatened. What has this hypothetical person done to cause that?
Said hello?
Or touched inappropriately?
In the first of those, the fearful must recognize that their fear is at least slightly irrational, and option F, even if it was argued to be a smart tactical move, is unjust. It's simple assault.
In the second, he's a huge douchebag already, and no one is defending him, and F, while it's probably NOT a smart tactical move depending on the persons involved, IS justified.
So please expand, because you seem to keep coming around to the rape/assault/unwanted touching concept that no one is defending, without taking into account the "Ugh, that creepy guy said hello to me! What an asshole!" that DOES HAPPEN, and is what (I think?) is mostly being talked about. If you don't want the "creepy guy" who's done nothing Objectively Bad talking to you, you need to let him know. A comforting lie doesn't matter if he's actually a Douche, and doesn't help if he's a confirmation-biased Awkwardian. I don't think most of us are strongly defending the "you'll get raped less" premise of expressing your personal preferences, but rather, "you'll get bothered less by those who aren't bothering you on purpose, and will know quicker the ones that are".
If you ask someone to step back, because they're standing too close, and they do? They're just a Close-Talker a la Seinfeld, and they're NOT an asshole. If they don't? Dingdingding, we have an asshole.
A person who absolutely does not want unsolicited social interaction might pursue Gary Larson's idea on the subject:
http://images.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=919&q=far+side+%22do+not+touch%22&oq=far+side+%22do+not+touch%22&gs_l=img.3..0i24.2110.8622.0.8998.24.21.0.2.2.0.184.2003.17j4.21.0….0…1ac.1.19.img.Mjtt_LoLKWA#facrc=_&imgrc=d4ljtBZDdwp0dM%3A%3BnDOFMzsVnLi_rM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.ardes.com%252Fassets%252F2012%252F2%252F1%252Fsab-farside.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fblog.ardes.com%252F2012%252F2%252F1%252Fseparated-at-birth%3B500%3B628
"I don't think most of us are strongly defending the "you'll get raped less" premise of expressing your personal preferences, but rather, "you'll get bothered less by those who aren't bothering you on purpose, and will know quicker the ones that are". "
I am, with the proviso of "over time". Relative to status quo, actively identifying bad actors (and applying sufficient negative reinforcement) reduces the number of rapists over time, either because they're excluded from events you go do, excluded from society via imprisonment, or have the behavior shaken loose from them.
Compare the progress of, say, people who smoke in ways unwelcome to non-smokers. Once upon a time, smokers saw the right to smoke everywhere, and put things into my body whether I consented to it or not. Some brave people complained, but they were mostly cowed to silence. Today, those filthy people with their filthy habit have been corraled to tiny reservations outside the buildings where civilized people gather, able to work and socialize free from unwanted intrusion by tar-heads sucking on their nasty little death-sticks. All it took was the noble and pure non-smokers speaking up for their rights to remain unpolluted. Even today, occasionally someone gets smoke blown into their face, but the number of time I inhale cigarette smoke has gone way, way, down… I don't have to live in fear any longer, and I won't.
I'm seeing a lot of outrage expressed over the idea that identifying some behaviours as "creepy" is equivalent to demands that anyone engaging in any one of these creepy behaviours even once be reported as a harasser, and that this means they will be automatically judged as guilty and expelled from the con. Since none of this is remotely what anti-harassment policy advocates are suggesting, I'm not going to argue with that strawman.
An approach that someone judges as creepy is not harassment if the approacher respects expressions of non-interest and backs off, no matter how much the approachee might complaint to other people about the approacher being creepy. Venting about creepy approaches and filing a harassment report are two very different things, one is not necessarily going to lead to the other, and concluding that a single instance of unwelcome approach will lead to the most drastic of responses is utterly illogical.
Here's the Anti-Harassment Policy for Meetings and Activities of the American Astronomical Society and Divisions, which because it treats all members as professional colleagues is not exactly comparable to how a con for fans as well as professional would operate, but simply on the principles of identifying harassing behaviour it lists and the procedures for investigation and appeal it lists, does anybody find any particular one of their provisions objectionable?
@TM, just so you know, I wasn't apologizing for anything. "I'm sorry" in English can mean both "I apologize" and "I sorrow for you"–this should be pretty clear when one hears "I'm sorry for your loss," obviously, the person stating this is not apologizing. I meant it in that latter way.
As far as the discussion goes, I have long since lost interest in participating. I don't feel comfortable with a group of male rules lawyers discussing hypothetical ways for women to deal with harassment and assault. I'd much rather discuss the issue with people for whom the rubber meets the road.
"does anybody find any particular one of their provisions objectionable?"
Well, this is a description of acceptable behavior in a workplace, so it's probably "stricter" than is appropriate for a convention organized at least in part for social interaction.
For example, according to these rules, I've been sexually harassed at a con, in the form of "a display of sexually suggestive objects", in the form of scanty costuming. There are ABSOLUTELY some people who dress in a way that would be inappropriate for a workplace, and they're primarily women.
There is also far more bureaucratic structuring here than is appropriate for a social con. The con response procedures is designed to be quick and to provide for fast resolution, and vests far more discretion in the security staff. This is largely because the stakes are far lower; the con security staff are limited in punitive power (warning or ejection from the con) vs a professional organization (a dead career). However, this also sharply limits investigatory capability and almost completely removes due process. The accuser presents whatever evidence they have to the con security who respond, the accused marshals whatever defense they have, and the decision to eject or not are immediate. Thus, the largest factor is who the security staff believes; they're usually pretty good but they're not perfect.
"I'd much rather discuss the issue with people for whom the rubber meets the road."
You're doing it wrong.
Scanty costuming standards of appropriateness would definitely vary between con cultures, James, a variant standard of the very type I took care to mention in my comment. Since costumes on living bodies of fellow attendees are only "objects" by the most idiosyncratic of definitions I suspect most orgs would classify that under separate guidelines for appropriate attire rather than under their anti-harassment policies though.
I take your point about the procedural differences between a professional society and a social con (as I has already alluded to in my comment), but I'm not sure what you'd have done differently in handling such problems at an event that might only last one day and rarely lasts more than three. If con security doesn't take an approach more like a bouncer in a bar then attendees who feel harassed will continue to feel unsafe and the problem of people deciding not to buy tix in future because of that will continue to affect the ongoing box office for the con.
@princessartemis:
That's not just an ineffective approach, it's also wildly hypocritical. The idea that "Only one side of this equation matters" is the same problem that's being complained about.
@tigtog:
"An approach that someone judges as creepy is not harassment if the approacher respects expressions of non-interest and backs off, no matter how much the approachee might complaint to other people about the approacher being creepy. "
We're in at least partial agreement. But how shall that "expression of non-interest" be codified? If someone says "Not right now", or "I'm busy at the moment", so the creeper comes back later, is he now harassing? Some on here would seem to think they are.
And we have, in fact, been talking about the moral blame that's laid at the creepers, as much as the practical application of appropriate policies. The Dongle Incident did not involve Con staff as far as I recollect, for example (certainly it wasn't the initial response).
@tigtog —
This is exactly what some (not all) are suggesting as a goal. Part of this may be that they confuse the hundreds of times that they've been offended by thinking that the accused must have offended hundreds of times. It may not be what you want, or that most want, as a goal, but it's not a strawman. I've seen similar demands too many times in too many places. If those making this demand are being hyperbolic for effect, they're preventing their true desires from being achieved.
Doesn't arguing with a tiny minority viewpoint to the extent you are having to wade hip deep through a vast swamp of more moderate positions that you are ignoring to argue with that one log of radicalism indicate anything to you about how stupid your argument is?
Fred Davis
Not when I'm trying to agree with the moderate positions. My disagreement is with the log that the moderates keep denying is in the path.
Fred, this debate has multiple sides, and there are unreasonable demands coming from multiple vocal minorities. A substantial number of debate participants haven't even come to common terms yet, much less on agreed to a common approach or anything like a solution.
For example, I think there is complete agreement that a goal should be that nobody should touch other people without consent. So. How do we identify people who break the rule, and what do we do about it once they're identified? No consensus, moderate or otherwise.
What about other things that are "creepy", but don't rise to criminal offenses?
There are all sorts of complaints and demands (and a few polite requests, even) covering a wide range of behaviors that range from "yeah, that sounds pretty offensive" to "really? THAT bothers you?" in severity.
thesis_ascendant: Being male and attracted to women is perceived as the crime, and any action that supports that attraction is evidence. There's a backlash against this, and some nuts who think that actual harassment is defensible join in.
I disagree. There is a backlash against making harassing behaviors socially unacceptable, and this is the narrative being used to strike out against it.
Being male and attracted isn't the issue. Looking at a person you find attractive isn't the issue. Not accepting that they have autonomy is the issue. Not accepting no. Yes, taking too long a look may get you a bit of fish-eye. But any one person doing that isn't going to get the, "oh you creep, you harassed me," response.
Being dude number fifty to look at her as if the clothes were peeling off from the pressure of your gaze, that's gonna get a reaction.
It's the idea that being female in public is, "asking for *it*" is the problem. And that's what the, "they are socially inept" is all about. It means the woman who gets their attention just has to, "deal with it".
Well when they get to Dealing with it, people don't like it.
David W: Well, yes. Which is why I tend to think the conviction rates of murder and assault and harassment ought to be similar – just that fraction of society who can't understand basic morals.
If we had enough people who said, "well maybe it wasn't really murder (I can't think of any examples which might be present in the greater zeitgeist of such a thing, maybe in Florida, or someplace), then it might not be a problem.
But look at lynching. It was so prevalent that the US gov't had to ban the sending of "souvenir postcards" through the mails. It was so socially accepted that it wasn't "murder".
But people were still dead, when all was said and done; even if no one could have gotten a cop to accept the complaint (much less a jury to convict).
The "subjective" nature of the two offenses is also a problem. Look at all the people (mostly men) whining that, "this means flirting is forbidden". Bullshit. It means harassing is forbidden,and they don't want to need to pay attention to not harassing.
It's the whole thing about how, "consent is hard", and "I didn't know it was rape". And people who don't want to look at their actions are usually quick to defend someone who has transgressed in a way which makes them think they might be transgressors too.
And once again we get someone who thinks that people defending specific behavior MUST be defending behavior they've expressly, explicitly, undeniably disdained, rather than what they're actually defending.
@Terry: Did you really get any that from anyone on here? (Well, okay, a couple of idiots, but they were quickly shouted down. It's the internet, there are trolls) You make a grand, sweeping generalization. What's the basis of it?
pseu: All laws and policies regarding sex need to be rolled back to about what they were in 1970
When marital rape was legal? When women didn't have protection from sexual harassment in the workplace? When a man who didn't leave bruises wasn't abusing his wife?
No. Just no. I'm sorry you think that you are oppressed by women being closer to equal to men under the law, and that they are militating to be mens' equals in society, but that's your problem.
I don't want it to remain theirs.
Tell, me, how do you feel about Thomas Ball? Because that "pussy cartel" bullshit is a bit of a tell.
"A thought for the girls. You control how men act around you."
A thought for the guys: You control your own actions. You are responsible for them too.
Women are not responsible for me looking at them. I look at people who interest me. I wear kilts. I don't, "ask for it" when someone give me shit, nor am I "asking for it" when someone gives me an approbatory glance/comment. I am doing my thing, for myself.
Same for women.
"Make a behavior unacceptable to women everywhere, and it dies swiftly."
No. It's not up to women to stop men from being assholes by all disliking the same thing.
Again, each of us is responsible for our own actions.
It's not that hard.
But you can't expect behavior that results in sex to be eradicated by a high-minded internet campaign.
The alternative is…?
Because "no means maybe,and maybe means yes" often leads to sex. It's also rape, but hey it "works". Using the, "it leads to sex, so we have to put up with it" argument means women lose a lot of agency, because people can wear down resistance; or exploit things like drink, exhaustion, isolation, etc. to get sex.
James Pollock: If you aren't providing clear, unambiguous feedback, you're part of the problem.
But when people provide that feedback (e.g. Genevieve Valentine at Readercon) people (in that case Rene Walling) ignore it, and other people say, "oh, you misunderstood him".
So that's (at a social level) bollocks.
Tarrou: "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" – Andrea Dworkin
Behold your allies.
How long has she been dead? What was the context of that quotation? How much influence does her work have on present feminism?
Pseu (and he's not alone in the Manosphere/PUA circles)presented an entire argument. You have his context (and can make your own decisions about his subtext, what with quid pro quo and the need for prostitution to, "break the cartel" women have put together to deny men sex.
James Pollack: (Just as there's a difference between what is expected from an adult woman and a young (nope, younger) child.
But you are willing to blame her for it, even now.
If a dog (the four-legged kind) jumps on you, and you do not want it to jump on you, you tell it "no" and swat it with a rolled-up newspaper.
And you are complaining about it. That's what having policies, and commonly declared standards of behavior is about. But you want to have your cake and eat it. Women (and the men who agree with them) aren't supposed to do that, because it's nt fair to the men (somehow) who now have a set of guidelines to refer to.
And women who get offended are guilty if they don't meet your standards for "effective communication",and if one woman can be shown to like something another one doesn't, well women are to blame because they didn't come to a consensus (which is precisely what you seem to be upset at having been attempted).
"A thought for the guys: You control your own actions. You are responsible for them too."
Yeah. But I'm not responsible for that dude's actions.
"James Pollack: (Just as there's a difference between what is expected from an adult woman and a young (nope, younger) child.
But you are willing to blame her for it, even now."
Yes, she is responsible for her own actions. Where have I heard something like that before. Oh yeah! From you. In fact, I just quoted it!
How is it that *I* am an enabler of the worst sort because this bad thing happened and I did nothing about it, how is *she* NOT an enabler if this bad thing happened and she did nothing about it? If you make excuses for one, you make excuses for all.
And WHY is it so difficult to spell my name correctly? It appears above every one of my comments, so anyone reading this thread should have it down by repetition, if nothing else.
@tigtog
The discussion I've been trying to get to for a while now is what constitutes an expression of non-interest. I'm happy to have this discussion, but every time it starts to come up, it appears that people are either unwilling to have it (declaring it rules lawyering) or continue to hammer on the sexual assault topic, which we have all already agreed is criminal regardless of whether non-interest was expressed or not. Would you like to have this conversation? I think it would be a nice change of pace from the dead horse beating we've all been doing these last hundred posts or so.
@ princessartemis
It is unfortunate that you are so willing to dismiss me and feel that I can offer nothing to the conversation at large. It is even more unfortunate that you appear to be only interested in discussing this with the assaulted and the assailants since the assaulted are apparently unable to change the current situation and the assailants appear unwilling to. It seems to me in that case your only hope for change is to engage in a constructive dialog that allows 3rd parties to more effectively evaluate and respond to the causes and behaviors which are propagating the status quo. I sincerely hope you change you mind on this.
Terry, I've become rapidly convinced that you missed the entire point.
I'll be happy to defend the opinions I've actually stated, and I'm going to just go ahead and ignore the opinions you're yammering about. K?
Terry Karney —
Even though number fifty just walked in and hasn't looked at anyone yet. Yes, this is a form of justice.
Those are just words. If it is so clear cut what "creeping" is, then define it, in english.
All words are just words. Define Love. Define Awe. Define Sublime.
"Being dude number fifty to look at her as if the clothes were peeling off from the pressure of your gaze, that's gonna get a reaction. … "
"Even though number fifty just walked in and hasn't looked at anyone yet. Yes, this is a form of justice."
Is there, like, a "take-a-number" doohickey somewhere?
Actually, we addressed this up-thread. Making a display of a sexual nature is harassment to the people who see it. Thus, what we have above is victim-blaming. These poor men are victims who are being criticized when they react to harassment! For shame, people with double-standards. FOR SHAME!
"All words are just words. Define Love. Define Awe. Define Sublime."
love
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
awe
an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like.
sublime
elevated or lofty in thought, language, etc.
creeping
to move slowly with the body close to the ground, as a reptile or an insect, or a person on hands and knees.
Posted without editorial:
Pollock: "It would be lovely if people feeling victimized felt empowered to confront their victimizers and put a stop to it."
Wouldn't it, though?
"Sometimes they do. But when they don't, it falls to the people around them to help them."
Yes. It's none of my business until someone makes it my business, by asking for help.
Catch-22. Again it's all on the victim to feel secure enough to report it. If they don't complain you are free of obligation.
This seems at odds with the brake fluid analogy.
And.. there are places which have dealt with this problem. Things like "the back-up project" are ways to make it easier to get help: by telling people they can just refer to an outsider (who is wearing an insignia which tells the world they are willing to intervene).
But that would be against your principles as stated here: After all that's not the victim "correcting" the harasser.
Then again, you didn't get the point when people tried to correct you. Like a creepy person harassing someone you just keep on keeping on.
"For the most part, women are faced with hatred if they articulate what makes them uncomfortable."
I don't think that this is true.
What you think is at odds with what the women testifying about this say. Why should I believe you over them?
What you say is at odds with what I have observed. Why should I disbelieve my experience, just because you can't be arsed to pay attention to the evidence of others?
I'll be happy to defend the opinions I've actually stated, and I'm going to just go ahead and ignore the opinions you're yammering about. K?
Would somebody please offer an alternate method of handling these situations so that we can have a proper debate?
Almost this entire thread people have expressed a desire for change (either in convention rules or the social contract). Yet none of them have put forth any ideas on what changes should occur.
James (and others with similar views) have made a clear and precise list of actions and responses for various social interactions in a public forum. Yet each of these ideas has been denied for a large variety of reasons (some that have nothing to do with attending a social function). And there is still a lack of opposing ideas.
Isn't it the responsibility of the speakers to make themselves understood when participating in a debate of ideas?
As always, I am open to correction if I have incorrectly inferred anything.
TM: and the revelation that you can have social, but non romantic interactions with females was something that I didn't get till late in the game,
I think this is because we have allowed (for the 40ish years I've been in the culture) this sort of predatory/oh they are just clueless to be so much the subtext of creepy behavior. It casts women as sexual objects first (whom guys can't understand) instead of people who have their own desires.
Which leads to the "vending machine" model of sex. "If I can just figure out the social formula she will sleep with me." That shortcuts the actual interaction described in the, "get ten piece of information" idea.
Question: Do you suppose it is unhealthy to have a social model of the world that assumes every person you interact with is a potential rapist until proven otherwise?
Nope.
I'm male. When I walk down the street, I am assessing everyone I see for the potential to be a threat. The cabbie, the guy walking his dog, the woman with the shopping bag, the tourist with the camera. First thing I do when I see a cop is find their gunside; because that will let me know what's going on if they decide to send up the balloon.
An adage in Military Planning (I did a career in Intel/Operations): You can't plan for what the enemy will do, only what the enemy can do. When queried, in neutral language: a significant number of men (about 8 percent) admitted to having committed legally defined rape.
That means, at a con, there are somewhere between 12-100 rapists (assuming a ratio of 1:17, and moderate, to large: but not ComiCon scale, cons). Until he tries to rape you, you don't know. That's what Schrödinger's Rapist is all about.
Question 2: Which do you suppose is more irrational? My belief that an offer of a drink is a neutral and natural way of starting a social engagement in a setting of strangers or your belief that a person doing so is propositioning you for sex, considers you nothing more than an object, and may be trying to drug you.
Setting aside the false dichotmising of the loaded language, your idea that the offer of a drink is presumptively neutral. If I don't know someone, and I'm not some sort of notable figure at an event, that person offering to buy/get me a drink is going to set my spidey-senses tingling.
And I'm not a woman. I don't have as much reason to be suspicious of motive.
Pollock: "It is ALSO true that to eradicate this type of behavior, the men who are doing it need to re-examine their motivations and behaviors, but that's something I have no influence over beyond making intercessions when called."
But upthread you said this wasn't something, "women" had to do, but something everyone needs to work on.
But you aren't willing to work on it. You also don't think anything less than punch to the gut seems to count as forceful enough (after all, there are poly people in the world, so mentioning an SO can't be a way to inform someone you aren't available). No, the object of lust must make it plain that they aren't available for sexytimes: even if the "offer" hasn't been overt either.
Plausible deniability is one of the things predators do. Rene walling was told no. He was told no in front of witnesses. He was told, loudly, "You don't get to put your hands on me".
You will say that was assault, and you decry it, but you won't intervene unless the victim says,"Will you help me". That is giving, at some level, tacit acceptance of groping behavior (because she hasn't made it clear enough she wants other people to step in).
And the culture at large is still making excuses for him. Saying that the application of the stated policy of the convention was too harsh.
So it's not that "women" aren't making their feelings known, it's that people like you discount their feelings. That lets people who are willing to ignore those feelings continue to do it.
Pollock: re your definitions: Way to miss the point. Those are abstract terms. Your definitions (and those in the dictionary) are by no means universal; and the definitions applied to them are contextual.
My love for my partners is different from my love for my pets, or my goblet, or my penny-whistles, or the cup a dead friend made for me to drink coffee from.
My awe at the Grand Canyon is not the same as my awe at the thunder, and the sublime pleasure in fireflies isn't the same as the sublime joy joy of being shot at; and missed.
And the terms which defines each of them is "right" and utterly fails to encompass all the words mean.
For more clarity on your failure to understand this I remind you of Jeremy's reply, upthread, who did a better job that I of showing why your use of definition is useless. The Rules Lawyers will always find a way around (e.g., "Yes, she told me she had a husband; but she didn't say, "no, I'm not interested in fucking you.")
We accept "a less than clear no" all the time. We know when a clerk doesn't want to serve us. We know when a co-worker wants us to leave. But you would change the rules when it comes to refusing an unwanted offer of sex. You want to make the incumbent position that to avoid a furtherance of unwanted advances the advanced on must be blunt, even to the point of pre-emptive rudeness (no being polite, and using the social cues which in a less sexual situation would be taken as read, nope; the moment she thinks he is making some sort of overture she has to say, "No, I won't fuck you", and then what? go back to talking about the evils which interleague play has wreaked on baseball?
Mr. Karney,
You don't know me, but we lurk and/or post at many of the same places on the intertubes, and we have mutual friends. I just wanted to say thanks for stepping in here to fight the good fight; this place's comment threads routinely exhaust me beyond any capacity to string words together.
TM wrote:
The human hivemind (men and women) has yet to come up with absolutely universal verbal formulae for just about anything, because we all grow up in different cultures, different subcultures and different families. However, a lot of study has been done on body language signaling non-interest, and Google is your friend:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=body+language+signs+of+not+interested
Geeks capable of memorising a bunch of small visual signifiers in their favourite games indicating opportunities to score mega bonus points don't get a free pass from me on not learning the basics of reading human body language. My ASD kids learnt to do it, after all.
"Pollock: re your definitions: Way to miss the point. Those are abstract terms. Your definitions (and those in the dictionary) are by no means universal; and the definitions applied to them are contextual."
Thank you for making my point. If you want to use words in OTHER than their dictionary meaning, EITHER it's up to you to make your non-dictionary definition known, OR you don't get to complain when people use the dictionary definitions.
Since you've decided on the "or", fuck off.
"We know when a clerk doesn't want to serve us. We know when a co-worker wants us to leave."
Yes, WE do. That doesn't mean everybody does. Hell, people still sometimes misread their significant others with whom they've been in a decades-long relationship.
"You want to make the incumbent position that to avoid a furtherance of unwanted advances the advanced on must be blunt, even to the point of pre-emptive rudeness "
You're STILL trying to make claims about "what I want"?
"Clear and unambiguous" does not mean "blunt". It does not mean "rude". It means "clear and unambiguous". Make it clear and unambiguous, and as polite as you like. Watch, for example, as I switch gears with you.
"STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION, YOU FUCKING MORON!"
You see? I was ambiguous before, and you kept coming. Now I'm being clear and unambiguous. As I noted far, far upthread, the "social introduction" arena is not the only area of applicability. "Tell people what you want if you expect them to give it to you" is a recipe for all kinds of human interaction.
And, if the rejection has to be loud and attention-getting so that all around can hear it, it clears up a LOT of what would otherwise be evidentiary issues.
"You will say that was assault, and you decry it, but you won't intervene unless the victim says,"Will you help me". That is giving, at some level, tacit acceptance of groping behavior (because she hasn't made it clear enough she wants other people to step in)."
Yes, I not only tacitly accept but openly advocate groping behavior, if it was welcome when initiated. If I see "groping behavior" but no complaints about it, what, pray tell, am I to do? Pre-emptively punch the guy (whoops! That's her husband, and I'm off to the pokey!) Butt in? ("excuse me, but I'd like to substitute my judgment for your own") I think we agree that I shouldn't reach in for quick grab of my own, but what else am I, as a person who sees two people acting in a way that may or may not be wrong, depending on the opinion of a person who I don't know and who has not communicated distress to me?
@terry karney
That late revelation had nothing to do at all with predatory permissiveness or casting women as sexual objects and everything to do with the fact that at the time I was a teenage male, had limited social interactions at all, let alone with females, the fact that almost all teenage targeted media focuses on budding romantic relationships and the fact that teenage relationships between the opposite sexes generally are romantic in nature, what with homones being what they are and all.
As to the your answers to my questions, I truly feel sorry for you if that is your mental model. There is a difference between being aware and alert and actively thinking each person around you is a threat. I truly and honestly do not know how to even begin having a mutual discussion with someone who actively believes that someone being social at a social event is suspicious activity.
By the way, since it appears that you are simply working your way down the comment thread, replying as you go rather than reading and understanding where the conversation is now I will assume you haven't gotten it yet, and so I will link it for you here, please read the following post I made and assume the content (but not underlying anger) is also addressed to you, it expresses my views on a deceased horse you are currently beating : post here
Going forward I will assume you have read and understood that post and will reply accordingly.
P.S. there's also considerations as to whether someone is standing behind a merch table therefore constrained from being direct because their job is to sell people stuff – anybody who thinks somebody whose job is being professionally pleasant is *really* into them based on short exchanges while that person is doing their job really needs a reality check 99.99% of the time.
"Geeks capable of memorising a bunch of small visual signifiers in their favourite games indicating opportunities to score mega bonus points don't get a free pass"
How about the ones who can't? Amazingly, not everybody is good at videogames, even a SF con.
I mean, no one's asking your for a free pass, but what kind of pass should they get, or is it OK with you if people who haven't learned all the rules of social interaction yet get treated like people who just won't follow them? Note here: I'm not claiming that anyone pressing or exceeding boundaries does so innocently, far from it. But, contrary to some assertions, they DO exist.
Again. We agree that people who won't follow rules be punished sufficiently to change their behavior OR be excluded from events. Let's get them identified and handled If it's them or you, most of us pick you, and we'll work on the apologists as they surface. But when we get those people who aren't intentionally harassing others, if you're still saying "us or them"… I'm not so sure we pick you.
So… other than a quick Google check or consultation with a pre-printed printout before approaching, what advice can we give them to keep them from being confused for the dudes we're already deciding to kick out? Are you willing at all to help them learn not to be put in that category? And what if Google steers them wrong?
"it's not that "women" aren't making their feelings known, it's that people like you discount their feelings."
That's bullshit.
"That lets people who are willing to ignore those feelings continue to do it."
What lets people who are willing to ignore the rules of social interaction continue to ignore the rules of social interaction?
1. People who don't report it when it happens.
2. Failure to impose consequences when it happens.
I've got to have 200+ comments in this thread by now. Find one where I support either of these or STFU.
Pollock: There is another problem, from a social cost POV to your, "The woman has to tell the man what she doesn't like."
Each one is unique. An asshole (of which you admit there is a non-zero number) can use that as an excuse to harass any number of women; "just making sure she doesn't like that approach.
It also means (as so many women have complained) that each interaction with a man can have that dynamic; of him testing her boundaries to see how much he can get away with.
So it's not just, "her dog" she has to train, but every single one which approaches her.
And you admit this is part of the problem:
Why should she have to do that? She is doing what every other competitor is doing. Why should she have to make a special point that she needs to be left alone?
Why can't she expect the levels of courtesy offered to the males in the room?
I know, BTW, how that plays out. I've seen it in action: not at chess tournaments; but just in a coffee shop which had, "do not disturb signs for patrons. Women who put them up got more interruption; so much so the coffee shop got rid of the signs. They want to know why she put the sign up, what she was doing, etc..
I am just in awe of the total ignorance of how women who do not behave in a wary stance ready to ascertain danger are reviled in culture and their own social circles for not 'taking precautions'
I mean that's -why- they make those nifty little sticks to put in drinks to determine whether or not they have been drugged. And why women who are drunk are blamed for their own rapes, and why we aren't supposed to park in the dark parking spots, and why we walk with our key's out. And why we don't live in bad sections of town, or we make sure when we go out on dates with new people we leave a note with his name and information on it in our apartment for our friends to call.
Or why we have that call time for our besties after a date, because if they don't hear from you by 12 they call the police or start looking for you. Or why women go into party settings alone to watch each other's drinks and help each other get away from unwanted attention.
This vitriol of us assessing each interaction with the potential for the danger we -may- face with any new participant is really fascinating when it's compared to the reactions we receive when we -are- assaulted and raped.
You all are right. Every man that approaches me has the potential to be someone who harms me. Media taught me that, my parents, my friends, the girls who have been assaulted,my own assaults and harassment has taught me that. There is a constant level of awareness and wariness that most women live in and deal with, because if we don't then we are 'AT RISK' . The tragic thing is that we -know- we're at risk regardless of it. We know that the guy who we've thought of as our friends for years could rape us if we get too drunk, we know that even if we -do- follow all the rules we can and will be assaulted (we know this because of the rape of elderly women, because frankly Grandma shouldn't be worrying about her drinks or the height of her skirt and yet…there she is raped and assaulted).
There have been thousands upon thousands of words that talk about how -unfair- it is that men have to approach women as if they are something dangerous. The irony in that is absolutely amazing. Men are dangerous (AND YES, before you jump for the keyboard so are women, and if a man looks at me as if I am a potential threat because I am 6'1 and played rugby in my youth? I understand it and let -HIM- dictate our interaction and how much of it there is..because I respect his ability to be afraid and his space.), more so than women, though as a mother of two sons, I am highly aware of any woman (or man) who is overly interested in my children. Including teachers.
I get it, the social awkwardness, I think that to some degree whether or not you're a jock or a geek or whatever there is social awkwardness outside of your 'group'. This is not an excuse, and the inability to acknowledge that people who are routinely threatened and assaulted in these situations -have the right- to be wary and on their highest awareness setting -IS entitlement-. Pure and simple.
'Yes women get harassed at cons and that's terrible but what about that poor Joe trying to hand a drink to a woman who has…probably been told about the harassment or harassed herself!? She should be totally nice to him and step out of her comfort zone because -he- wanted to give her attention!'
Yeah guys? that's pretty crappy.
Should have read 'don't go to parties alone' Didn't proof read enough obviously.
James Pollock: Sure, not all geeks are gamers, but I posit that one of the defining features of geeks is an enthusiasm for the minutiae of their subject of interest. If one subject they are interested in is romantic relationships with others (whether opposite sex or not), then they should be studying the minutiae of how to gauge verbal and non-verbal expressions of both interest and the lack of interest from others in order to save themselves time, energy and heartache, and they should be studying it from multiple sources of information just like they would for their other areas of geek interest when they want to be sure that the first link they find on Google isn't laughably idiosyncratic in its point of view.
One huge benefit of cons adopting high-visibility anti-harassment policies covering a comprehensive range of misconducts (not just sexual harassment) is that it makes it very clear to even the clueless that some people do find some behaviours unwelcome enough that there are consequences for engaging in those behaviours, and this provides a strong incentive for people to do their usual auto-didactic procedure that they follow for other subjects in order to better understand what those behaviours are.
There are a ton of resources on the net for what constitutes harassment generally (typically including, but not limited to: epithets, slurs or negative stereotyping; threatening, intimidating or hostile acts; denigrating jokes and display or circulation of written or graphic material that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual or group) and the added elements of sexual harassment in particular. Why shouldn't we expect geeks to do their own homework on this?
@tigtog
Yes, as a whole, it's pretty impossible to define universal standards of behavior, as I've said many times before, social dynamics are hard and they get harder as you mix cultures. Heck, even within the same culture, the hardest and fastest of rules are full of caveats and exceptions. See above where we noted that despite an absolute right not to be touched without consent, it is generally socially acceptable to grab a small child to keep them from running into the road and being injured. Presumably that same restriction has exceptions built in for a parent physically removing their tantrum throwing child from a resaurant. And likewise there is an obvious exception for defending yourself.
That does not mean that we can't have a productive conversation about creating a general and specific guideline that could at least be widely applicable to the small subset of human interactions we call geek conventions. There are some actions I think we can all agree are universally wrong (see assault), there are some I think we can all (with the possible exception of some commenters) agree are benign (such as introducing yourself). What gets trickier are the interactions we're not in agreement on, such as offering a drink. It is these interactions that we could have a productive conversation on, both in defining which actions we aren't generally on the same page about.
[seriously, I never knew there were people that would think a social offer of a drink or lunch at a social gathering was a threatening encounter, I suppose I could see it if you had previously been assaulted after just such an encounter, but to my knowledge none of the objectors so far have stated that as a source of their objection. I also seriously never knew that there is a social model out there that would consider "hey babe, can I buy you a drink" and "excuse me miss, can I buy you a drink" as equally offensive because "hey babe" and "excuse me miss" carry the same social weight]
I seriously think that if we had this conversation, we would find two things:
1) we have far more common ground than the usual discussions would imply
2) we have some surprising differences that would not have otherwise been revealed, and thus would have continued to fester as misunderstandings
Lastly, as regards to geeks abilities to handle the nuances of their games vs social encounters I would like to make 4 points:
1) games use a lot of standardized signaling, even between games
2) geeks spend thousands of hours at games. The ones that are socially awkward, have probably maybe spent a few hundred hours in an active healthy social setting (no, school does not count)
3) when geeks start out, they make a lot of mistakes in their games, just like they make a lot of mistakes in their social interactions
4) games have very hard and fast rules for everything that are universally consistent through a game and likely standardized across multiple games. They also come with a manual and a tutorial. As we've noted, social interactions do not.
I lied, one more point:
We are talking about cons. The same public gatherings which have to publish in their materials given to their attendees guides to personal hygiene. Is it seriously so odd that we might need guides to social interaction too?
1.The first party takes a position.
2.The second party attacks that position.
3.The first party defends its' position.
4.Repeat steps 2 and 3 ad nauseam.
This is not a debate. Unless the second party takes a stance on the issue and subjects itself to similar inspection, I can only consider them to be trolling the first party regardless of the passion they feel.
"Each one is unique. An asshole (of which you admit there is a non-zero number) can use that as an excuse to harass any number of women; "just making sure she doesn't like that approach."
If he's actually harassing, then he'll get kicked out. Problem solved. If he keeps it up, he'll get kicked out of everything. Problem really solved. If he keeps it up until he gets kicked out of everything he cares about, he might even change his behavior.
For some reason, you're opposed to that.
"It also means (as so many women have complained) that each interaction with a man can have that dynamic; of him testing her boundaries to see how much he can get away with."
Fortunately, the test is short, and "leave me alone, I'm not interested in talking to you" is always a correct answer.
"So it's not just, "her dog" she has to train, but every single one which approaches her."
No. You've mangled the metaphor, so I'm not sure what you mean by "train". If you mean "provide feedback so as to improve this poor fellow's "game", She doesn't have to train ANY of them. The ones who don't offend her don't need training.
Now, if you're saying she has to deal with any jerk who tries to paw her, well, yes, she does. I don't know any way to make that go away, other than either by removing her from the jerks, removing the jerks from her, or conditioning the jerks to stop being jerks. I'm still waiting for you to offer anything there. Since we're already working from the assumption that touching someone without permission or refusing to take "no" for an answer are ejectable offenses, what else are you looking for here?
"Why should she have to do that? (indicate non-interest in casual confersation)"
Because openness to human conversation is a fundamental assumption of being in a public space. You don't have to actually BE open, but you don't get to bite people's head off for assuming that.
"Why can't she expect the levels of courtesy offered to the males in the room?"
Is she being prevented from engaging the males in the room in coversation?
"James Pollock: Sure, not all geeks are gamers, but I posit that one of the defining features of geeks is an enthusiasm for the minutiae of their subject of interest. If one subject they are interested in is romantic relationships with others (whether opposite sex or not), then they should be studying the minutiae of how to gauge verbal and non-verbal expressions of both interest and the lack of interest from others in order to save themselves time, energy and heartache, and they should be studying it from multiple sources of information just like they would for their other areas of geek interest when they want to be sure that the first link they find on Google isn't laughably idiosyncratic in its point of view."
So your advice is "read the manual"?
Let me summarize: I asked "what are you willing to do to lift the ignorant out of ignorance so they won't be confused for the malicious".
Your answer is "nothing".
Is that accurate?
Actually, cons do (or at least, can have) a tutorial. The con I went to as a much younger man ran a panel on romantic relationships as one of the first scheduled events on Friday night. The moderator was VERY good at playing the "Dear Abby" role. As I recall, it was about evenly split between males and females.
However, I think they dropped it after they had the 12-year-old girl show up and ask for advice on how to get a guy to sleep with her. (Obviously, her parent(s) were not there, as this con has free-range privileges for 12-year-olds.) There were 30 adults or so, ALL quickly thinking of, and just as quickly rejecting, anything, anything at all to say. I've no idea how that turned out. This con also used to feature a speed-dating event on Saturday's programming track. I didn't go so I don't know how that event worked.
James Pollock:
Yes. Quoting from Scalzi's latest on his personal Convention Harassment Policy:
Research what behaviours are generally agreed to constitute harassment in official/academic resources. Analyse whether one's flirting strategy can be clearly distinguished from harassment. If not, then change it.
Not at all accurate. I've been dropping links all over the place to resources where people have spent many hundreds and even thousands of personhours summarising/systematising relevant knowledge. I'm not vain enough to think I can do better than these multiple resources have done in the confined space of a blog comments thread.
Also, IMO the best way to educate the ignorant so that they don't get confused for the malicious is to report them when they do cross boundaries. This is a highly educational experience regarding which boundaries they shouldn't be crossing.
The major harassment problem comes from the Serial Harassers who keep on saying "but how was I supposed to know?" even after they've been told dozens/hundreds of times. Without an official record of previous reports/warnings, the Serial Harasser keeps on getting away with it. That's why all incidents need to be reported and the accused at least talked to by Con security with a record made – so that the Serial Harassers can be reliably distinguished from the Inadvertent Harassers who learn from the incident and modify their behaviour for the future.
Pollock: While I agree that cons should have a policy and that policy should encompass the things he wants, the smug and pompous WAY he says it pushes me strongly in the other direction.
As opposed to the humble and conciliatory tone you've used throughout this set of exchanges?
Nate: Treat others as you would want to be treated.
It's better to cast this in the negative: Do not do to others what you would not have done to you.
That requires, to some degree, putting yourself in the position of the other person, as to what would be unpleasant.
The first formulation leads to,"Would I like an intelligent person to talk to me?" "Why yes, yes I would."
The second, "Would I dislike being interupted while prepping for a match?" "No, no I wouldn't."
It can lead to thinking like:
"But I might like to talk about it after it was over".
"As opposed to the humble and conciliatory tone you've used throughout this set of exchanges?"
Yes.
"So your advice is “read the manual”?"
"Yes."
OK, but no complaining when the manual they get ahold of has instructions you don't like.
Yet another elision of extra information given in one of my comments, this time about what sort of manuals to read, and advocating analysing whether some manuals recommend strategies that are indistinguishable from harassment as defined by official/academic resources, and therefore such manuals ought to be discarded?
Go do your own homework, James. Other people do not have to spoonfeed you or any other otherwise functional adult.
Also, people get marked down in homework situations for not having read widely enough and thus choosing poor quality resources for their referencing all the time.
If novice flirters don't do a comprehensively wide-ranging effort on their research for how to improve their flirting strategies, they will be marked down for their failure to incorporate conflicting data available in many other resources. Their lack of research effort is on them, not on anybody else.
Good gravy. This thing keeps steaming along with no sign of stopping. For good or bad, this is going to have to be my last – busy weekend, and this thing looks to be unstoppable.
@htom –
"Mark, I though you were talking about the general "I'm feeling harrassed" complaint."
Understandable misunderstanding. There is a lot of talk about harassment and other behaviors (outside of rape/assault) and what to do or not do about them in this thread. I have not discussed those at all myself beyond the "don't hit on me, k?" sign at the chess tournament idea James Pollock had. But with all of the crosstalk in a thread like this it's almost impossible *not* to have miscommunications.
My comments, (outside of the waaaaay upthread response to the thread's original topic and an admittedly self-indulgent dive into Paranoia rpg nostalgia), have been confined to the topic of rape and assault. I apologize, then, for the misunderstanding on my part of your earlier response.
Good advice on preparing for a con too. I agree wholeheartedly on the element of surprise and you give some ideas I had not considered.
@Grifter –
"So please expand, because you seem to keep coming around to the rape/assault/unwanted touching concept that no one is defending, without taking into account the "Ugh, that creepy guy said hello to me! What an asshole!" that DOES HAPPEN, and is what (I think?) is mostly being talked about."
We are *all* pretty darn far off the topic of the original post at this point. Like I responded to htom above, I have been pretty fairly narrowly focused on the topic of rape/assault with my comments this far downthread. The reason I "keep coming around" to it is that some strategies proposed here that (admittedly) work well for avoiding the "Ugh, that creepy guy said hello to me! What an asshole!" situations – which are unpleasant – may be detrimental to avoiding being raped or assaulted.
Harassment and creepiness are important subjects – no disagreement here – but I just don't have the time to keep that many multiple subjects going in one thread; especially a thread-that-will-not die like this one. Maybe another time, no doubt the subject will come up again.
@JR
"My reason for making the inverse statement was that while you have not yet stated a beneficial means of dealing with the subject of this conversation, you did say that the methods proposed by James and others was of negative benefit."
As far as the topic of conversation part, see my response to htom and Grifter above.
That said, "rebuffing men's advances" is not the inverse statement of "clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person." Not even close.
Are you talking about back where you thought I was implying soft denials of consent and muddled stating of boundaries were a good idea because I thought "clearly stating ones boundaries and providing firm denial of consent to any approaching person." can be a bad idea?
Question: If I say "Eating your own warm boogers is repulsive and disgusting" do you honestly think that statement implies that I believe "Drinking someone else's cold boogers is delicious and delightful."?
Sorry dude, I can't figure out a more charitable characterization of your inference than willful misunderstanding. That's why I did not respond to you earlier and will not respond to you again.
Jeremy: Yet it is no different than telling a man to "man up" when anything bad happens to him.
Which was said here by whom?
I'm beginning to think you might not be arguing in good faith.
TM: A con is not a gang rape or mass sexual assault waiting to happen.
Really… That depends; let me enlighten you. The Open Source Boob Project
In some 40ish years of attending cons, I have to say this, "dude with no social skills who can't talk to girls and has screwed his courage to the sticking point" isn't someone I've known many of.
I grew up in fandom, from the middle-seventies, as a youth, into the '80s as a teen, and then a young adult in the late '80s, early '90s. So I 1: ought to know these dudes, and 2: ought to be one of them.
I've seen a few, but not many. I was a geek in HS (my first day at my second HS my English teacher spotted me as a D&D sort, and told me the D&D group/club met in her room at lunch). Somehow I managed to figure out how to treat women as people. My friends did too. Most of the guys I knew at cons did as well. There were a few who were creepy (and some who were flat out assholes), but the trope that "geeks are feebs" when it comes to women, not my experience.
Now maybe I was in some outlier group, but I don't think so (this was Los Angeles, LASFS, etc., I've known some "name" authors from way back). What I did see was some people who pushed the envelope, and then blamed it on other people/things. People who didn't take "no" for an answer, and had to be ostracized to prevent it from being a bigger problem.
But the culture let pretty much everything short of forcible rape slide.
So the idea that setting norms, and having people support people who seem to be uncomfortable, doesn't bother me. Because I've had to help pick up the pieces when someone was "creepy" to a point short of sanctionable/legal noticeable action.
Those things that Pollock is saying aren't his affair, unless someone has the presence of mind to hale someone to help her, in the moment. Which does color my perception. This shit isn't right. Glossing it as, "on the spectrum" or, "not my problem" is bullshit.
To quote Hillel, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not me, who? If not now, When?".
Pollack: . Hint: Driving off the people who start out inclined to support your cause is NOT a good way to achieve your goals.
Hint: "I will support you only if you accept the risks inherent in doing it my way," is 1: piss poor "support" (unless what you mean to support is the status quo) and 2: not something of which the absence is going to be a detriment.
Men: your behavior is your responsibility. If you don't want to be mistaken for a creep, a harasser, or a rapist, then don't behave like one. And anyone who has read this thread has more than enough information at this point as to how to go about behaving in ways that distinguish them from boundary-testing predators.
Simple.
One has to wonder what dire consequences await the unfortunate uppity women who have the gall to complain that Mr. Pollack read the wrong manual. After all, he laid down the rules: "no complaining!"
That's it, then. He was told to read the manual, but he read the wrong one, but it's not his fault.
No complaining!
"Complaining," of course being a totally different behavior from "firm boundary setting," which Mr. Pollack insists on.
James Pollock, I'm going to ask that you not use my and my sister's stories/experiences to bolster your points unless you make it abundantly clear that the potential for you misunderstanding what happened is there. This is because, while my sister was not raped, she was subjected to a long-term campaign of sexual harassment by that man, a crime for which he was subsequently convicted. (Solicitation of a minor, to be clear.)
You did not live through that situation, but you insist that your understanding of it is better than mine/hers and feel perfectly comfortable in attempting to explain how our own perceptions of and reactions to these events is wrong.
I know that I have no power or right to attempt to constrain you on this subject, but I am hoping that you'll understand why I make this request. I worry that you're basically going to use my story to bolster a claim that I fundamentally disagree with in nearly every way possible, simply because I didn't word it in a way that would allow you to understand that experience as deeply as if you had lived it without you actually having done so.
I'm relying on you being a good enough person that you'll stop based only on the fact that I'm asking you to, even if you fundamentally disagree with me. I know it might disappoint you, but understand that the way you brought up my/her story and used it without fully understanding it genuinely did hurt and I'd like it if you would try to avoid that by not mentioning it as a point in the future.
—
I'll also note for other readers that I've been working my way through Firefly and that the episode "Our Mrs. Reynolds" is a brilliant deconstruction of this exact conversation. If anybody has access to Firefly – I'm watching it on Netflix – you might consider watching or re-watching that episode and keeping this conversation/thread in mind. I think it offers really good, neutral, non-threatening food for thought (and is really entertaining besides).
Also, Terry, thank you. Ken, thank you. It really does help when men speak up on this topic in the way you have here, if only because it makes me feel like I'm not crazy/living in some kind of bizarre alternate reality where I only interact with the real world at specific points. If I've missed any other men that have spoken up and attempted to explain then I apologize, and I thank you as well.
Indeed. Discussions like this are great for flushing out the false friends among the group. I'd much prefer to identify, and then distance myself from, someone whose support is as conditional as Mr. Pollack's, than to be surprised by his sudden but inevitable betrayal at a later date.
TM: The problem as I see it is that you're operating from the assumption that if you don't define clear boundaries with someone likely to assault you when you do, that they won't assault you.
You have it backwards: The fear is that a really clear declaration of boundaries may trigger an attack.
The answer therefore is not to ignore them and hope they choose to go assault someone else, the answer is to loudly and clearly define your boundary and highlight that this person is wilfully and intentionally violating it... and hope it's not too painful when they do. FTFY
And thanks to Kat for returning to set boundaries with Mr. Pollack.
We shall see if he is capable of respecting them.
I thought it was extremely shitty of him to essentially blame Kat for being raped, because she was not as assertive as her sister.
There was no apparent recognition on his part that the nut of the problem there was that there was a rapist going around testing the boundaries of young girls and then raping the ones he thought were easy prey.
If Kat had been slightly more assertive, that does not mean the rapist would have stopped. It means he would have moved on to a different target.
There are always going to be vulnerable people in this world – people who have trouble asserting themselves, who are shy, who are traumatized for whatever reason. There are also always going to be predators.
The question at the heart of this thread is: are we going to construct our social spaces and social rules to make it easy for predators to operate (i.e., the status quo) or hard (i.e., the changes that people are suggesting – in the socialization and behavior of both men and women (but especially men, since women have already made a lot of changes in their traditional behavior, over the course of several decades)).
TM: I think part of the problem is that points #1 and #2 combine to appear to most males as an accusation that all men starting an interaction with a woman at a con is propositioning her for sex. That's a highly offensive assumption to make.
Do you see what you did there? Combine to appear becomes a backhanded accusation that women, as a class, actually think this.
Men's perceptions have morphed to women's accusations.
For which you are castigating women.
78% are committed by non strangers
But stranger is pretty narrowly defined. The dude you met yesterday at the con… not a stranger.
TM: So are you saying that in your experience, men in general and geek men in particular do not operate on a more literal level. That they do not generally use or appreciate the more subtle nuances of social signaling?
I don't agree. I'm a man. I'm an Army Interrogator (retired). I spent large chunks of 15 years teaching the art. I've spent a lot of time examining both the literature on how to elicit information, and in settings where I could both observe people doing it, and practicing it.
One of the things we have to teach students is how to be literal. Why? Because conversation is chock-full of nuance, and subtlety and non-literal interaction.
The hardest thing is to teach people to ask only what they want to know; to not assume they can extract the entirety of detail from a broad question.
"Would you like to get a drink" is not a literal question. In general usage it implies an alcoholic beverage. A non-alcoholic beverage is asked after with the locution, "would you like to get something to drink". The use of the indefinite, "something" does two things, it moves it away from booze, and also gives the person being asked some options in where to go/what to get.
Men know this. They know this because it's how the social rules of conversation work. From my time in fandoms, and watching (because part of being a good interrogator is acquiring a better map of how people use language and interact) "geeks" (as a class) know it too.
Mr. Pollock:
And you ignored her boundaries when she told you to stop using that in your arguments: you left out that while her sister wasn't raped, she was, in some other form, sexually assaulted by him; for which he was convicted, and sent to prison.
Which goes back to the points being made earlier when people told you that you were engaging in bad behavior; and you ignored them (i.e. didn't stop repeating the same points; with no supporting evidence, and made as if mere repetition changed the merit of your arguments).
In short, they set boundaries and you chose to ignore them. Then you chose to do it again, on a different subject, and you misrepresented the facts.
So, stop it. Respect the boundaries (or admit that boundaries aren't actually any more important to you now, than they were when you admitted they weren't when you were younger).
Seriously. Is it that hard to spell my name? I really shouldn't be surprised that people misrepresent my opinions if they can't even be bothered to spell my name right.
"James Pollock, I'm going to ask that you not use my and my sister's stories/experiences to bolster your points unless you make it abundantly clear that the potential for you misunderstanding what happened is there."
Your story is your own, Kat, and I will respect your wishes in this. I apologize if pointing it out was hurtful for you.
I still disagree with many of your demands, but this is personal in a way that other things aren't.
"I thought it was extremely shitty of him to essentially blame Kat for being raped, because she was not as assertive as her sister."
Yeah, I would have, too, had anyone done that.
Mr. Karney, I'm going to have to ask that you not use my story to try to prove your point when you don't know what you're talking about.
In fact, I'm going to demand, AGAIN, that you stop misrepresenting my opinions. You reject my opinions, fine… if you can figure out what they actually are…
Where's your suggestions?
"I'd much prefer to identify, and then distance myself from, someone whose support is as conditional as Mr. Pollack's"
Good. I said all along that if you can handle the problem without my help, you could feel free to ignore everything I said. That offer remains open.
This is, of course, not dispostive, but a candid camera crew went to see who would step up on a dude taking advantage of a drunk woman. Not only did no men intervene, but there were guys who moved in, or aided the predator in being creepy.
@Sally Strange
I'd much prefer to identify, and then distance myself from, someone whose support is as conditional as Mr. Pollack's, than to be surprised by his sudden but inevitable betrayal at a later date.
This makes me think I should have used the term "with hunt" instead of troll.
How exactly do you see James betraying you? To whom? And for what gain? Or was this a figure of speech? Is he unreliable for adhering to his beliefs in the face of so many accusers? Or was that just a rhetorical device?
Also, what changes to the status quo are being advocated here? Hasn't the creation and posting of social conduct rules been trending at every sort of gathering for quite a while? It is very unlikely that any such organisation would want to flirt with lawsuits in such a litigious society. Is it that the change is happening too slow or not drastic enough? If so, what further alterations are being advocated?
As of yet, I can't find anyone here making any concrete statements on the subject except to provide links to show changes that are already being made. Since it is already in the process of becoming, it doesn't exactly belong in the same group as things that need to be done.
I've been asking for someone to define the opposing position several times with no answer. It's not required that somebody do so, but would certainly allow me (and maybe others) to see how well it holds up in comparison to the assault on Mt. Pollock and come to our own conclusions.
@Terry Karney
I don't think it's cool for you start using it as a rhetorical device either.
@James Pollock
Sorry, just realized that I messed one up, too.
@JR:
I know why I haven't answered you: I haven't seen you clearly lay out anywhere "the position" against which you want someone to define "the opposing position".
Sorry for misspelling your name, Jame Pollock.
As far as his betrayal – he has clearly stated that if people don't act according to the way he thinks they should, he will abandon the cause. Since nobody ever acts 100% the way someone else wants them to, it's pretty much a guarantee that Mr. Pollock will abandon whatever cause it is he's offering his conditional support to eventually.
And yes, Mr. Pollock. You did victim-blame Kat. You noted that her sister was more assertive, and did not get raped, and that she was less assertive, and got raped. You used this fact to communicate your opinion that women should take responsibility for more clearly stating their boundaries, ignoring the fact that the main problem with that situation was the presence of a rapist, not the inability of a very young girl to abide by the social rules you think women should follow.
Shitty behavior.
Actually, we need all the help we can get. It's just that you're clearly unwilling to do the things that we have identified as actually helping; you prefer to act as if you are the ultimate authority on what helps, and if anyone insists on telling you otherwise, you're not interested anymore.
Shitty way to "help."
Grifter: @Terry: Did you really get any that from anyone on here?
In the course of 15 pages, yes, I did. I see a lot of people saying, "oh, it's just socially akward dudes", and denying the reports of women who were harassed (and then had their harassment blown off as, "you misunderstood him", when what they did was exactly what people here have been prescribing as the solution).
I see evidence of predatory people being a notable number, and that they exploit the socialisation of women to accomplish their assaults (and rapes).
I saw all of that in this thread.
And it wasn't, "quickly shouted down". Some of it (four days on) is still happening.
I see people who are defending the status quo, and saying the victims need to step up; and that the victimisers need to be, "understood, and educated". In the same breath I see attempts to educate them being derided as, "too arbitrary".
Specifically, the social conventions whereby people make excuses for men who engage in harassing behaviors by lumping inadvertent harassers in with serial harassers, and making excuses for the latter by pretending they're the same thing as the former. Changing the status quo means informing the inadvertent harassers that they MUST change their behavior or else be mistaken for a harasser. "Socially awkward" is no longer a valid excuse for harassing behavior. If you're socially awkward, then err on the side of caution. If this means getting your dick wet less often, then so be it. It probably won't, but nobody ever seems to believe women when we say this. But either way, a few socially awkward guys masturbating instead of fucking a few more times is a price well worth paying if the end result is a community that is relatively harassment-free. If you think otherwise, then you value men's sexual satisfaction over women's comfort and perceived safety, and that is a shitty, sexist attitude to have.
*James, not "Jame", obviously. That was a typo; the previous misspelling was carelessness.
Pollock: Yes, she is responsible for her own actions. Where have I heard something like that before. Oh yeah! From you. In fact, I just quoted it!
No, you didn't. You were holding her accountable for someone else's actions: laying some share of the blame for any subsequent assaults he committed on her.
Nice try.
How is it that *I* am an enabler of the worst sort because this bad thing happened and I did nothing about it, how is *she* NOT an enabler if this bad thing happened and she did nothing about it? If you make excuses for one, you make excuses for all.
Because the cases aren't parallel. You aren't a child being victimised by an adult.
Terry, I've become rapidly convinced that you missed the entire point.
I've come to the (not so rapid) conclusion you have a fundamental inability to read your own words for content. I can't count how many cases of, "you didn't understand me" you have trotted out to how many people.
Perhaps it's time to buy that saddle.
htom: Even though number fifty just walked in and hasn't looked at anyone yet. Yes, this is a form of justice.
Does it suck? Some. But you know what, it sucks more to be the perpetual object. If she tells him off, and he gets his feelings hurt, or even if she tells security, and they give him a talking too (and having been con-security; even the chair of con-security, that's what's going to happen with a leering complaint; unless it's not the first) is going to be salutary.
It's what James Pollock is arguing for, "clear boundaries".
Pollock: I'll be happy to defend the opinions I've actually stated, and I'm going to just go ahead and ignore the opinions you're yammering about. K?
Not so's I've observed. I'm not the first person to quote you and be told, "you didn't get it", when the words are plain on their face.
"Sorry for misspelling your name, Jame Pollock. "
Seriously?
"And yes, Mr. Pollock. You did victim-blame Kat."
No. I read a comment that there'd been no evidence that setting boundaries didn't make things worse, and directed that person up-thread to see it. Yes, there was laziness on my part, in the sense that I should have scanned through the thread myself and cut and pasted in the link.
"Actually, we need all the help we can get. It's just that you're clearly unwilling to do the things that we have identified as actually helping"
What, pray tell, are these things you've identified as "actually helping"?
"Shitty way to "help."
One more time for the reading impaired: if you don't need or want my help, feel free to ignore anything I said.
"It's what James Pollock is arguing for, "clear boundaries"."
YES!!! YOU FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT!
"Specifically, the social conventions whereby people make excuses for men who engage in harassing behaviors by lumping inadvertent harassers in with serial harassers, and making excuses for the latter by pretending they're the same thing as the former. Changing the status quo means informing the inadvertent harassers that they MUST change their behavior or else be mistaken for a harasser. "Socially awkward" is no longer a valid excuse for harassing behavior."
Say… these are all things *I* advocated for!
"I see a lot of people saying, "oh, it's just socially akward dudes", and denying the reports of women who were harassed (and then had their harassment blown off as, "you misunderstood him", when what they did was exactly what people here have been prescribing as the solution)."
Can you point me to an example? I don't recall anything like this, and I'd like to see what you're complaining of.
TM: As to the your answers to my questions, I truly feel sorry for you if that is your mental model. There is a difference between being aware and alert and actively thinking each person around you is a threat.
You don't understand it. You don't know whence it comes and you mistake it if you think assessing the risk is the same as seeing everyone as an actual danger. A person driving who doesn't see the other cars as a risk isn't doing a good job of driving.
That I assess the risk on the street is much the same. It's not fear, it's caution.
Yes, I saw that comment you linked back to, Of course I also see you saying that having concerns about how to guarantee that security in our persons is something you find incomprehensible. Someone I don't know who offers to buy me a drink, I am going to assume has an agenda. Someone who (as with a cop) has a weapon, is a threat. It may be a completely benign threat (as with the bicyclist who isn't paying attention to pedestrians as he travels the wrong way down a one way street), but it's a threat.
If I don't know the agenda, I'm going to be suspicious. If the pattern of previous people to use that approach is not one I've enjoyed, I'm going to be much more suspicious of it (e.g. the people who ring my door in pairs, while holding saddle stitched magazines, probably Jehovah's Witnesses: I'm not interested).
That you feel sorry for me, tells me you don't understand what's being discussed in this aspect of the conversation.
It's an aspect of how women can't win. If "she" does what I do, she's too suspicious by half. But when she doesn't emit the right sort of unequivocal no, then it's her fault.
"No, you didn't. You were holding her accountable for someone else's actions: laying some share of the blame for any subsequent assaults he committed on her."
What did I say about misrepresenting my opinions? I don't think it's accidental any more… nobody is that stupid.
"Because the cases aren't parallel. You aren't a child being victimised by an adult."
Everybody. Responsible for their own actions. One rule that applies to everything. Can't get any more "parallel". It's not that hard, why do you struggle with it so?
Pollock: Thank you for making my point. If you want to use words in OTHER than their dictionary meaning, EITHER it's up to you to make your non-dictionary definition known, OR you don't get to complain when people use the dictionary definitions.
Since you've decided on the "or", fuck off.
U mad bro?
You may have noticed that I've been reading every single (repetitive, in some cases) word written over the past four days. It takes a bit of time.
The definition put up earlier works just fine for me (and a lot better than, "crawling, or moving slowly along the ground, as an insect", why one might think you were trying to dodge the issues).
You're STILL trying to make claims about "what I want"?
Still? Ok. Have you changed your position? It's all there in black and white: If she doesn't appeal for help, she's on her own . If she doesn't say yes in a way the dude admits is clear (because saying she has a partner isn't good enough, it might be an open relationship, etc.) then he's cool, has been your stated (and defended) position from the beginning.
Did I miss a comment where that changed?
Oh, I see…. the victim has to be willing to make a scene:
And, if the rejection has to be loud and attention-getting so that all around can hear it, it clears up a LOT of what would otherwise be evidentiary issues.
How does that differ from my presentation: that she has to be blunt, even to the point of pre-emptive rudeness (since he wouldn't take more gentle indications).
Pollock: In fact, I'm going to demand, AGAIN, that you stop misrepresenting my opinions. You reject my opinions, fine… if you can figure out what they actually are…
Whut? I'm talking to you. I'm not going elsewhere and reprising you. So what you are saying is, in effect, "agree with me, or shut up".
Can you point me to an example? I don't recall anything like this, and I'd like to see what you're complaining of.
You were given a sets of links. I included some in my comments above. Ken put some in the post. Were those also in the vein of "manuals" you didn't like?
YES!!! YOU FINALLY GOT ONE RIGHT!
Says the dude who ignored the clear boundary someone set for him (in re using her story, and incorrectly, to further your agenda).
Pollack Everybody. Responsible for their own actions.
Even when it isn't their actions you are holding them accountable for.
Unless they are you: ignoring signs of distress, refusing to even enquire, lest it be taken amiss. Any subsequent harm to the victim is all her fault; nothing you could have done.
You don't even have the excuse of a power differential (age, inexperience, fear of worse harms). You might get told off.
But no skin off your nose; you didn't do anything.
Which is, of course, the problem.
"if you think assessing the risk is the same as seeing everyone as an actual danger. A person driving who doesn't see the other cars as a risk isn't doing a good job of driving. That I assess the risk on the street is much the same. It's not fear, it's caution."
Being aware of everything around you is one thing. Actively assuming that everyone you see intends to harm you is quite another. That sort of thinking was right when driving in Fallujah, not as much driving in Ft. Worth. Sounds a LOT like PTSD to my admittedly untrained eye.
"Someone I don't know who offers to buy me a drink, I am going to assume has an agenda."
I also.
"If I don't know the agenda, I'm going to be suspicious."
You don't EVER know someone else's agenda, ergo, you are ALWAYS suspicious.
"the people who ring my door in pairs, while holding saddle stitched magazines, probably Jehovah's Witnesses: I'm not interested"
Put up a "No Soliciters" sign. Works on Mormons, too.
"when she doesn't emit the right sort of unequivocal no, then it's her fault."
Yes, it's her fault that people try to start conversations with her. To pull from some advice I got not long ago, she should do her homework. Google is full of information about how to send "not interested" signals. She should learn to send those signals before going to places where people try to start conversations or suffer the consequences of people trying to talk to her. In the meantime, if she finds herself in a situation she can't control on her own, she should know how to call for help. (Yes, that's "status quo", but alas, it's likely to be true forever despite everyone's best efforts.)
Sorry, typo in your name, it wasn't intentional. If I change it, that would be to Pillock.
Pollock: Being aware of everything around you is one thing. Actively assuming that everyone you see intends to harm you is quite another. That sort of thinking was right when driving in Fallujah, not as much driving in Ft. Worth. Sounds a LOT like PTSD to my admittedly untrained eye.
Ooh… now your a shrink. Your eye is comppletely untrained.
Gonna pull a Frist and do a in depth Diagnosis? The vet must be mentally unstable, right?
As I said to TM, you don't know whence it comes, and you weren't paying attention to the details. I'll quote it, since you weren't reading very well: I'll emphasise the important part.
That's not, actively assuming everone [I] see is intending to harm me.
You don't EVER know someone else's agenda, ergo, you are ALWAYS suspicious.
Nope. When the guy running for mayor tried to buttonhole me on election day, I knew what his agenda was. When the barkeep at my local says he's gonna pour one on the house, I know what his agenda is. When my my CO headed for me with a handful of NCOERs I knew what his agenda was.
Why? Because they aren't strangers (the mayoral candidate didn't know me, but I knew of him, and context made it clear). Could I be wrong? Sure. The CO might have been taking those to someone else, and stopped to see if I had the Field Sanitation plan for the weekend's training ready; but even that was inside the scope of the agenda I was expecting (I figured the agenda is some bit of unit related business).
Yes, it's her fault that people try to start conversations with her. To pull from some advice I got not long ago, she should do her homework.
Missing that nuance again.
And too many links in that comment. I have to be at work in eightish hours, for a nine hour day, which is why I shall probably be absent until Sunday, at the earliest.
"You may have noticed that I've been reading every single (repetitive, in some cases) word written over the past four days. It takes a bit of time."
Slow down and try to understand them.
"Says the dude who ignored the clear boundary someone set for him (in re using her story, and incorrectly, to further your agenda)."
Would you mind pointing to where this happened, seeing as I don't seem to recall that happening?
"Pollack"
In case there was ANY doubt left that you're an asshole. Seriously. Getting someone's name wrong on purpose is SO third grade.
"Even when it isn't their actions you are holding them accountable for."
Everybody. Responsible for their OWN actions (or inactions) (Speaking of your seeming insistence on mis-stating my position)
"You don't even have the excuse of a power differential (age, inexperience, fear of worse harms). You might get told off."
Proof here that you aren't bothering to actually read my position, seeing as the risks are considerably higher than "you might get told off".
Get physical with someone? I could end up dead. I think I'm entitled to set the conditions where I take on this possible risk. You see, I know someone who intervened in a mugging, and stopped six rounds. I'm pretty active for guy who was in cardiac intensive care just two months ago, but I'm not as young as I once was. I'm now older than my grandfather was when he had his last heart attack.
Get physical with someone who is NOT an abusuer? Assault charges, tort case (my liability insurance doesn't cover intentional torts) plus, oh, yeah, I'm kicked out of the con.
"you didn't do anything. Which is, of course, the problem."
That story, like Kat's, is not mine to tell. Let's just say you got this one wrong, too.
@tigtog
Sorry if I am ever unclear. Until I started commenting on Popehat, most every conversation I had took place inside my head. I try to be concise, but may be over-pruning to the detriment of clarity.
The platform I was referring to was the one provided by James Pollock, since his is the most contested. My perception of this is that social interactions at conventions are almost universally subject to existing unspoken social contract, forum rules of conduct, and state and federal laws as well. Therefore, I believe he contends that the proper method of handling perceptions of harassing behavior is to:
(1) Make known any personal conditions for interaction in the introduction if such exist and are not ordinarily part of the existing rules mentioned above.
(2) If any of these rules are broken, it is in the interest of the victim to make use of the systems already in place. These can include any combination of the following:
(a) Publicly refusing to submit to untoward advances.
(b) Alerting the appropriate authorities to the situation.
(c) If unable to eject yourself from the situation, calling on those nearby for assistance.
(d) If laws were broken, calling upon the local constabulary pressing charges.
@Sally Strange
James has stated that he would intervene upon request. I fail to see how his decision to not act without that request can be deemed a betrayal unless you are conferring upon him an ability to intervene and the responsibility to do so without cause.
Thank you for defining your goals, but you did not list the new rules or changes to existing rules that would bring about such a result.
I must confess that the harassment/cover-up culture you mention is new to me. I've never been to a convention, but we had a very large L.A.R.P. gathering (almost 200 at peak 15 years ago or so) and our policy was to accept what other people decided whether it be who they associate with or what kind of lifestyle they led. This was enforced by a vague hint of violence for transgressors. With such a large crowd, we did most of our scenes in the streets, which required that we work to ensure everyone's safety from members and non-members alike.
"(1) Make known any personal conditions for interaction in the introduction if such exist and are not ordinarily part of the existing rules mentioned above."
This one isn't mine, but I agree with it.
Mine was "say "no" if you mean "no". If you give the guy wiggle room to claim you didn't say "no", you give the guy wiggle room to claim you didn't say "no". Being clear and unambiguous assists third parties (bystanders, con security, police) in helping you, AND increases the odds that they can assess meaningful and lasting penalties. Failure to be clear and unambiguous increases the odds that third parties will be unable to or less likely to drop the hammer. In other words, the more obvious the offender's offense, the less likely other people are to let him get away with it.
"(2) If any of these rules are broken, it is in the interest of the victim to make use of the systems already in place."
Not just the victim. In the long run, it's better for everyone.
"These can include any combination of the following:
(a) Publicly refusing to submit to untoward advances.
(b) Alerting the appropriate authorities to the situation.
(c) If unable to eject yourself from the situation, calling on those nearby for assistance.
(d) If laws were broken, calling upon the local constabulary pressing charges."
These are all good. I also added that, if there's reason to believe that boundaries were pressed because of ineptness rather than maliciousness, then a few minutes providing guidance may reduce further incidents in the future. (OK, I said it more forcefully, before, but that was in the subcontext of "inept approaches", not "bodily assault". In the case of bodily assault, escalating directly to con security is in order.) Of course, if you're OK with throwing out the inept with the evil, then don't bother differentiating them. (But note that failing to diffentiate clumsy from malicious seems to cause pushback, based on comments upthread.)
Also, the list above is NOT AT ALL indicative that targets of abuse cannot, if they are able, handle the situation themselves. While what we will henceforth call "Jeremy's solution" is probably not ideal, various implements of self-defense may do the job quickly and effectively without need to involve any third parties.
@James Pollock
Thanks for the clarification. When parsing 200+ comments, it's easy for some to slip through the cracks.
Oh my sweet baby Bob I am _so tired_ of this conversation.
Not angry, tired.
Tired of "but men get harassed too" (they probably do, but that doesn't mean it's okay to harass women).
Tired of "women just can't take a joke/we were just having a laugh/she needs to grow a sense of humour/he didn't mean it like that" (it's only funny if she's laughing, but she may also be laughing if she feels threatened, and is going-along-to-get-along).
Tired of "but what about the socially awkward" (what about them? They can put on their big-kid pants and behave like adults too).
Tired of "but it's Aspergers" (even if it is, either real or Internet-self-diagnosed, it's no excuse for harassment; I know Aspies who have been taught how not to harass).
Tired of "oh for goodness sake find something real to be upset by" (I decide what's worth my time and energy, thanks).
Tired of "well that's it, I'll never be able to look at/talk to/touch a woman EVER AGAIN" (well, if that's your take-home message, so be it).
Tired of "but men just can't help it, it's how we are, women need to learn to deal with it" (are you really telling me that men are unregulated and unregulatable bags of hormones and desires? Really? Selling them a little short, aren't you? Why are you so negative about men?)
Tired of "but women think all men are rapists" (no we don't; rapists do. And the "all men are rapists" line comes from a _novel_, not an academic work).
Just _tired_.
I know I said that further contribution on my part would only be repetitive, but I saw the post-count at 799…..and my OCD just doesn't stand for numbers like that.
Congratulations Ken on an 800 thread. And to Pollock for maintaining it in the face of sustained assault.
Pollock: For a guy who is all upset about how people interpret his words (the ones they are usually quoting directly) you sure play fast and loose with the way you present other people's unstated opinions.
And this: In case there was ANY doubt left that you're an asshole. Seriously. Getting someone's name wrong on purpose is SO third grade.
Was my apology not quick enough for you? You are all about how other people don't read you well, but then you pull shit like this.
Here Note the time stamp.
You can try to claim it was defending yourself, but what you did was repeat the claim that she was responsible for subsequent actions by her rapist; in refutation of the idea that there was a difference in the situations; which was a new claim on your part.
It's a lot like other ways in which people refuse to really accept a boundary. "Well this is different, she said she didn't want x, but this is y". It's what the long hyperbole in, 'Is this a definite enough no," (which you either didn't get, or chose to misrepresent) was about. Because rathe than address the point: which was it's impossible to get the guys making the problems to "take no for an answer" (and what does it say that that phrase is aphoristic) because they will nibble at the edge of any NO, even one that involved the woman making a scene and yelling, "You do not get to touch me" in a public place.
I'd probably have let it pass, save that you made a new argument with their story, and continue to misrepresent the actual facts of what she said happened.
Pollock: You don't even have the excuse of a power differential (age, inexperience, fear of worse harms). You might get told off."
Proof here that you aren't bothering to actually read my position, seeing as the risks are considerably higher than "you might get told off".
Get physical with someone?
Now I have to slog through a lot of older comments,† but I didn't say "get physical"; and neither did you (which I know because I can remember what I read; though you seem to be having trouble recalling what you wrote, when you painted the scene).
I also thought the issue was "setting clear boundaries". If they are happy with what's going on, where is the risk of getting shot? They will tell you to bugger off.
The only risk of violence is if the situation to the woman is an actual threat. And in that case you took a very different tone with Kat.
You told her she had to live with putting her safety over others,and live with being CULPALBLE in any subsequent rapes.
"you didn't do anything. Which is, of course, the problem."
That story, like Kat's, is not mine to tell. Let's just say you got this one wrong, too.
Comprehension problem. This isn't me talking about some story you didn't tell, it was you, "not intervening" in a hypothetical; a hypothetical you raised.
"Even when it isn't their actions you are holding them accountable for."
Everybody. Responsible for their OWN actions (or inactions) (Speaking of your seeming insistence on mis-stating my position)
Except that when faced with a hypothetical (as the one below, or mine above) you argue you aren't culpable for your inaction; someone else didn't say the magic words you wanted to hear. If they did, apparently, you would leap to action, and risk bodily harm, but if they don't, well you can't be arsed to be a little embarrased in the interest of stopping an assault.
‡ 1. In a crowd of people, surely not all of them are so socially inept that they are blind to a woman being creeped in their midst.
2. Witnesses to an ambiguous situation can do what the perpetrator should have done: they can ask. "Excuse me, is everything OK here?"
Now that one IS offensive. If I'm not sure if a woman's happy with her present social interactions, I should monitor her and if I'm curious, pop in and ask "Pardon me, miss, do you need a MAN'S help?" What a sexist.
How is that going to get you shot? She's happy, he's happy, you interrupted. I'd say that was an unreasonable expectation of violence.
And now I must head to work.
@sally
No one is looking to excuse harassing behavior. What I'm looking for is a line that distinguishes harassing from socially awkward or unintentional. I'm seeking a set of guidelines which doesn't turn nominally social events into tense or hostile events. And I'm asking for this discussion because frankly we all have different ideas on what constitutes harassing behavior.
For example, I personally grew up with the definition that harassment requires both intent and repetition (please note that for the sake of this discussion, assault is assumed to be harassment, regardless of whether it is repetitive) to be harassment. However, there appear to be plenty of people, in this thread alone who believe that approaching someone to begin a social interaction is harassment if the person being approached has already been approached and rebuffed others that same day. So what is the guideline here? How is approacher #52 supposed to know that they're #52 and they're Being harassing? Should we just declare that at cons, you can't approach strangers at all? Seems like that would kill a lot of the social aspects of the con.
What about dongle jokes? Is it harassing if you happen to overhear the joke, even if the joke is neither directed at you, or being said intentionally in your presence?
Or further, how do we reconcile your definition of harassment, with my definition of harassment with SF author and regular con attendee Sarah Hoyt's definition in such a manner that all 3 of us could attend the same con and have a good time?
Because aside from having this discussion and coming to an agreement we can all live with even if we're not 100% happy with, I can think of one other solution. All cons will be declared stranger interaction free zones. You may not talk to, approach or communicate with any person you do not already know. Then con attendees may wear pins or colored ribbons on their badges indicating which forms of social interaction they are open to accepting at this time. Red can be "I'm wiling to discuss events occurring at the con, but nothing personal", blue can be "I'm willing to discuss all red topics and my costume / merchandise / books / related professional endeavor". Yellow would be "I'm willing to discuss all blue topics and engage in personal small talk including non romantic personal details such as what I do for a living, the book I'm currently reading or my personal interests". Green would be "I'm willing to discuss all yellow topics and are open to possible romantic overtures limited by my personal boundaries which will be communicated up front". Purple would be "my preferences for social interaction are different from the standard colors, please introduce yourself by name only and ask for my guidelines before proceeding further". Anyone not wearing a colored pin or ribbon will be assumed to be following the default code of conduct (no talking to strangers). Anyone who violates the color coding system can be reported to con staff and if adjuged guilty will be required to wear an orange ribbon or pin which indicates "I violated someone else's social boundaries, communicate with me at your own risk". Repeated violations or egregious violations (assault) will be grounds for ejection and or criminal prosecution.
It would work. It would be the clearly defined boundaries I and others are asking for. And it would stop the "50 people have approached me today and I just want to finish my damn book" problem. We might have to work on how it will solve the dongle joke problem, and we'll probably have to require the pins or ribbons to be worn on a hat so that creepers can't use the excuse "I was just checking out her pin" to justify their leering. That said, I don't think anyone would be happy with that solution, so that brings us back to "we need to have a real conversation about this".
@Terry Karney
I'm sorry but your continued behavior in this discussion appears to be in bad faith, as such I am terminating the discussion between us. I am truly sorry we could not have a productive conversation. Best of luck to you.
I'm too late to get heard here, but, I'd think the answer is obvious.
Because people don't like when "their group" gets called out for something they don't do. It's the same reason why most republicans get defensive when a fringe lunatic is called out for excusing rape. Or why most democrats get defensive when some democratic senator is indited for corruption/sex/whatever.
When a group you identify as is attacked, you feel defensive. You feel like people are saying "You, Individual Hypothetical Person, are doing this!" rather than "Hey some people in our big Identity Group need to not do this." Someone says "Creepers are creepy and need to stop" but all people here is "Hey man, you're a creeper!"
Maybe it's because they're worried they see a few of the creeper behaviors mirrored in their own actions. Because for a lot of people who haven't been on the other side of the equation it's hard to see the difference between chatting nicely with a girl you don't know at a bar, or being a rapey douchebag stalking a girl you don't know at a bar.
… Also I'd argue part of the big issue with the debate as a whole is the inability to draw the line between victim blaming and explanation.
Look. No one is going to deny that the person at fault for a rape is the Rapist. Period. End of story. But we need to be able to talk about the issue in more detail than "RAPISTS ARE BAD, DON'T RAPE PEOPLE."
"Don't Rape" is not a meaningful response to the topic. No one is going to read that and say "Oh wait, you mean I'm not supposed to rape people?! Okay then, I guess I won't." It's like saying "Don't mug people" or "Don't kill people." It's great, but we all know that we're not supposed to do it. Anyone who does has already ignored the blatant and fundamental narrative we all, even with Rape Culture, subscribe to.
People who are going to rape are going to rape. Numerous studies have shown that the bulk of the time it's an active act by a relatively small sector. There are people who do it accidentally (say, by drinking with someone to the point where consent is impossible), but mostly, it's intentional. There's significant value in being able to discuss "Why was this person, out of everyone present, the victim?"
Because that ISN'T VICTIM BLAMING. A victim is not at fault for BEING A VICTIM. But if we can't look at and discuss what behaviors make people more likely to be targets, we're never going to actually protect people from being raped.
Sally, Terry Karney and others, thanks.
@TM
There isn't and can never be a clear line between acceptable and harassing behaviour. Partly because there are so many factors that are part of the equation, partly because such a strict line will cause serial harassers to have something to hide behind.
The only solution is that we, as potential harassers, constantly pay attention of the people we interact with so try determine if we are in danger of crossing the line. And partly, but to a lesser extent due to the power-dynamics involved, for us as potential harassed to signal we are getting uncomfortable.
Oh, this one is easy: fans believe that fandom, once they find it, is a safe place. It's a somewhat credulous belief, but when you've grown up not fitting in, then fandom can seem like a magical land of People Just Like You.
Except they aren't.
Everybody brings in their own baggage from their own circumstances. Guys – who are largely socialized differently than women, yes even geek guys, bring along ideas of entitlement. Women may think that they will avoid the sort of treatment they would find elsewhere, because, see, they like the same things I do!
So harassment in fandom – and the reactions to it – are bound up with the idea of trust, and how that trust gets broken. It's often an ASSUMED trust – which is unwise – but it's implicit all the same.
Which is why we should move past questions of "I don't get it" and deal with the f***ing problem.
"And anyone who has read this thread has more than enough information at this point as to how to go about behaving in ways that distinguish them from boundary-testing predators."
I suppose that's true. "Never approach or talk to anyone you don't already know well."
If a con wants to establish that as a rule…well, that's their right as a private organization. Kind of defeats the purpose of a con, but whatever. Not anyone else's business. It's essentially how I've lived the last 23 years of my life anyway, except at cons.
It's the whole "never approach or talk to a person who doesn't want to be approached or talked to" thing that's a problem. It's a fine policy, in a world that also has rules like "no means no". It's even a fine policy in environments that aren't _specifically designed and designated_ as social spaces. It's the requirement that we _read minds_ (because insisting that a person hanging out in a social space somehow indicate that they don't want to be social, before pressing charges against folks who do want to be social, is somehow equivalent to blaming rape victims for being raped) that's the trouble.
I miss having cons as a place where it's socially acceptable to strike up a casual conversation with people you don't already know. The ones I used to attend haven't really been that for years, which is why I don't go anymore. But at least in those cases, it's only been a matter of injured feelings and mourning for the loss of the last good opportunity for making new friends. In other words, my problem, not theirs. But when we start talking about the con organizations being compelled to throw people out for trying to initiate conversations, instead of individuals refusing to interact with them because they don't want to, then it's no longer just a matter of feelings, and thus it seems only appropriate to speak out.
"Gonna pull a Frist and do a in depth Diagnosis? The vet must be mentally unstable, right?"
I don't even know if she's a vet, and if so, I don't think it was service that created the problem, what with an entirely more obvious likely source of the trauma.
But, yeah, assuming that every dude she meets is a rapist just looking for the opportunity to spike a drink? That's not "stable".
James Pollock,
The point you keep coming back to, if I've got it right, is:
If women
1) Always make clear what their boundaries are (i.e. explicitly describe what behavior they are not comfortable with and what type of interactions they'd prefer) and
2) Speak out, loudly and clearly, when either those clearly-stated boundaries (or objectively obvious "no non-consenual body contact" boundaries) are crossed, then
3) The net amount of societal-wide harassment will drop precipitously.
Furthermore, you agree with the converse implication: womens' past refusals to consistently do #1 and #2 makes them partially culpable for the society-wide high rate of men-behaving-badly incidences across the whole spectrum of bad behaviors (from uncomfortably-creepy to violently-rapey).
Your appeal to the pet-dog analogy solidifies this. Checking that I've got that right: if dogs are not given clear-cut training on how to behave (#1 above) and this training isn't reinforced with immediate and consistent negative repercussions (#2 above), then it's only natural to expect that said dogs will continue to misbehave. Furthermore, it's downright irrational of the dog's owner to complain about this behavior when that same owner ALSO refuses to do either #1 or #2. In the analogy at least, the dog's bad behavior is MORE the dog's owner's fault than the dog itself.
I like to make sure I understand the logic put forward by those who have reached conclusions with which I disagree. Do you feel I've accurately summarized your viewpoints?
Anthea Brainhooke – I have the utmost sympathy for you and your fatigue. What I always try to bear in mind is that, tiring as it is to wade through the unending barrage of fallacious shit that certain assholes reliably and ceaselessly spew forth wherever this subject is broached, as a man, the whole thing just "goes away" for me when I close my browser. I can sympathise, but probably could never fully appreciate how exhausting and demoralizing it must be to LIVE this shit and THEN open up and have to read through a thread like this…
Oh, and James Pollock, unless/until you
1) acknowledge that your words above (directly implied that a child's refusal to state her boundaries made her partly responsible for her subsequent rape), and
2) repudiate that sentiment, repudiate your wording, and clarify exactly what you WERE trying to say (which damn well better be about a 180-degree turnabout from how your words read)
You are, in my book, one of these aforementioned assholes.
Here (again) are your words:
What implication were you trying to make, there, if not "Because the writer didn't set boundaries like her sister, she was raped (and more broadly, if only all children set boundaries, child rape would be much less prevelant)."?
Note – this is an insult, not an ad-hominen attack; take it as "your reasoning is flawed AND, unrelated to that, you're an asshole."
"Was my apology not quick enough for you?"
If you don't do anything wrong in the first place, you don't HAVE to apologize.
"It's a lot like other ways in which people refuse to really accept a boundary. "
Yes, I've now seen that you are, in fact, an expert in the field of exceeding boundaries. You're very good at it.
"you either didn't get, or chose to misrepresent) was about. Because rathe than address the point: which was it's impossible to get the guys making the problems to "take no for an answer" (and what does it say that that phrase is aphoristic) because they will nibble at the edge of any NO, even one that involved the woman making a scene and yelling, "You do not get to touch me" in a public place."
Or, perhaps I DO understand that there are guys who do not "take no for an answer". Hmmm. What to do about them? Let's see. Well, saying "no" doesn't stop them. But making it obvious that boundaries have been crossed significantly improves the chances that either A) use of force to stop him was entirely justified (if such force was used) and/or use of sanctions (i.e., ejectment from the con and it's public spaces, and/or arrest and confinement) is proper. So… the setting of clear boundaries doesn't produce the desired result in the short term, but increases the likelihood of the desired result in the long term. Which was my point.
So, again, who's the person missing the point?
All right, I did leave out a necessary assumption–that bystanders, con security, con management and police are just and fair, and, faced with a clear and unambiguous case of assault, will act to enforce both law and simple decency. I do, in fact, choose to make that assumption. (Plus, if you do not make that assumption, then attendance at all without substantial means of self-defense (i.e., "Jeremy's solution") seems like very bad planning.
"they will nibble at the edge of any NO, even one that involved the woman making a scene and yelling, "You do not get to touch me" in a public place."
Then (and this seems like a no-brainer) DON'T HELP THEM DO THAT. Don't give them any opportunity to "nibble".
@Kevin Kirkpatrick
That subject has been taken off the field by Kat. Further discussing it only makes you an asshole as well.
"Now I have to slog through a lot of older comments,† but I didn't say "get physical"; and neither did you"
I probably did not use those exact words. I have, however, referred to use of force (including deadly force) on MULTIPLE occasions, so I find this rather disingenuous at best, and another outright misrepresentation more likely.
However, to be clear, when I have used the word "intervene", it has been in this meaning: "to interfere with force or a threat of force".
"I can remember what I read; though you seem to be having trouble recalling what you wrote, when you painted the scene"
I'm not challenging your memory, but rather your grasp of understanding. That's what you lack, and persist in.
"The only risk of violence is if the situation to the woman is an actual threat. "
Well, no, it isn't. But that's neither here nor there.
"You told her she had to live with putting her safety over others,and live with being CULPALBLE in any subsequent rapes."
Yes. Although, to use your formulation, that's not "parallel". Declining to act in an unclear situation and declining to act in the presence of a definite, known assault not being the same thing, you see. Now, had I said "look, if it's obviously an assault but the dude is way bigger and stronger than I am, you're on your own", THAT would be a parallel.
"Except that when faced with a hypothetical (as the one below, or mine above) you argue you aren't culpable for your inaction"
Comprehension problem. You're making up my position instead of asking me what it is.
"someone else didn't say the magic words you wanted to hear. If they did, apparently, you would leap to action, and risk bodily harm, but if they don't, well"
Upthread was offered several variations of "if your actions can't be distinguished from those of the harassers, then change them or be considered a harasser." I agreed with that. The converse is "if your actions can't be distinguished from those of consent, then change them or be considered consenting."
"Your appeal to the pet-dog analogy solidifies this. Checking that I've got that right: if dogs are not given clear-cut training on how to behave (#1 above) and this training isn't reinforced with immediate and consistent negative repercussions (#2 above), then it's only natural to expect that said dogs will continue to misbehave. Furthermore, it's downright irrational of the dog's owner to complain about this behavior when that same owner ALSO refuses to do either #1 or #2. In the analogy at least, the dog's bad behavior is MORE the dog's owner's fault than the dog itself."
Yes, that seems to be the analogy. Of course, it's not directly applicable. For one thing, dogs are DOGS, and thus not held to the same standards as people. Secondly, when you apply this to people, the "dog's owner" and the "dog" turn out to be the same person, so attempting to separate them seems unproductive. No, wait, as I recall at one point we had the dude's parents as the "owner".
Analogies can help illustrate a relationship, but it's dangerous once you try to go beyond the original. For example, introducing the dog's chew toy to this analogy probably leads to disaster. Better to drop the analogy rather than attempt to stretch it.
"The point you keep coming back to, if I've got it right, is:
If women
1) Always make clear what their boundaries are (i.e. explicitly describe what behavior they are not comfortable with and what type of interactions they'd prefer) and
2) Speak out, loudly and clearly, when either those clearly-stated boundaries (or objectively obvious "no non-consenual body contact" boundaries) are crossed, then
3) The net amount of societal-wide harassment will drop precipitously."
NOT precipitously. Rather a decline, with time, as bad actors are identified, dealt with such that either they become more-or-less permanently excluded OR change the offending behavior. "Precipitously" would be exactly wrong. However, if you strike just that one word, what's left is substantially in accord with my opinion, yes.
"Furthermore, you agree with the converse implication: womens' past refusals to consistently do #1 and #2 makes them partially culpable for the society-wide high rate of men-behaving-badly incidences across the whole spectrum of bad behaviors (from uncomfortably-creepy to violently-rapey)."
That is a false inference. One of the fundamental assumptions of the structure noted above is "there is a structure of authority willing and able to act with authority, prepared to discipline offenders effectively, to appeal to for help. I am given to understand that this has not been the case. This failure, then, would be primarily responsible for the status quo.
From there, GOING FORWARD, failure to implement or, once implemented, failure to make use of a system to effectively discipline offenders, allows status quo to continue.
"I like to make sure I understand the logic put forward by those who have reached conclusions with which I disagree. Do you feel I've accurately summarized your viewpoints? "
Since you hadn't, I'll go ahead and ignore your conclusions based on incorrect assumptions. If you give a damn what I actually think.
This is the crux of the problem. You're looking for a manual, a set of rules for interpersonal interaction.
There are no rules that are applicable to every interaction. People are interested in or offended by different things. You have to pay attention and be flexible enough to notice that.
You really want to know how to not have social interactions turn bad because of something you do or say? Approach everyone as if they are:
1) human
2) have just as much right to be there as you do
Approach them in good faith. Give them the benefit of the doubt. No, you have no way of knowing that you are person #52 with the same comment about that person's hair or whatever. If she gives you a rude, irritated reply, then you're probably #52.
That's unfortunate. It's not your fault. Neither is it her fault. Don't take it personally, don't let it ruin your day. Just chalk it up to bad timing and walk away.
There is no manual about how to interact with women. Women are people. People are different from each other.
When you interact with people, they will reveal to you (if you're paying attention) what they find interesting, and what they find offensive. Avoid the people who find you offensive. Hang out with the people who find you interesting. Be aware that these things may shift over time.
In short: treat people like people, and not like a game you're trying to win.
This absolutely baffles me. Of course people do that at cons. I think it comes down to your not being willing to acknowledge that there's a difference between a casual conversation with someone, and harassing them. And no, there are no clear-cut rules about what the difference is, because it's different for everybody. And yes, you have to put some effort into paying attention to subtle cues, instead of waiting to be bludgeon with obvious clue-hammers.
So I guess, really, what you're missing is that space in time when the harassed people weren't speaking up about the harassment in public, so that everyone could maintain the illusion that nothing was wrong, everything was peachy, no problems here, officer.
And thus the freak-out every time this comes up on line. You are being made uncomfortable by other people expressing their own discomfort. If everybody would just shut up about it, and tolerate it, then you could go back to your nice, comfy obliviousness.
Too bad for you.
Pollock: These are all good. I also added that, if there's reason to believe that boundaries were pressed because of ineptness rather than maliciousness, then a few minutes providing guidance may reduce further incidents in the future.
No. I am not required to spend time, effort, mental energy, clueing in the clueless. That's what Capt. Awkward does. She gets paid. 1: They've just offended me. I'm not likely to be all that gentle with their feelings. 2: If what they were doing was intruding on my space to get my attention, they don't deserve the reward of my attention (this is classical operant conditioning: do it wrong, don't get the treat). 3: Experience (that thing you aren't paying too much attention to people sharing with you) tells me that when you tell someone "Guys, don't do that", they get all pissy (some of them so pissy they have to make internet campaigns to hound you; because you said, "guys, don't do that").
Ooh, more putting things never said into the argument. It's cute little rhetorical trick too; not assigning it to any one person. Makes it easier to deny later, while poisoning the general well; because with 800ish comments someone surely said something like this; enough like it that people watching from the sidelines might assume you were presenting an actual quotation. Of course the only people actually making this sort of claim are the folks defending the present circumstance.
1: If you have to use, "self-defense", the situation is already fucked up beyond what I'd call reasonable. If you have to defend yourself, you have been attacked.
2: If you have to use self defense, there sure as fuck ought to be third parties involved (which is what Elise did. What Genevieve Valentine did. &c. and even that didn't really change much; people are still saying that "women just need to make it clear what they want").
3: If you engage in a significant act of self-defense (say a shot to the nuts) there is the possibility of very official involvement, i.e. the police.
It's not a thing to toss of fliply; with a jesting reference to someone who said women need to pack heat. Furthermore (speaking as someone who has more than a passing familiarity with the subject) most people over-react when engaging in physical self-defense. Add the, "she can't push me around" idea so many men have, and the most common reaction to a woman defending herself is for the man to escalate, at which point the repercussions get worse; and someone gets really injured. To add grace notes to the deal, it's quite often that both parties end up under arrest, because the one person committed assault, and the other didn't stop when the situation was no longer one of defense; and so committed an assault of their own.
TM: However, there appear to be plenty of people, in this thread alone who believe that approaching someone to begin a social interaction is harassment if the person being approached has already been approached and rebuffed others that same day.
If you are putting me in that class you are mistaken. I'll wager there isn't anyone here who thinks the last person in the string is harrassing.
I think you are conflating two things, and that puts a lot of your conversation at cross-purposes, to the people you are talking to, and to yourself.
1: There are creeps.
2: There is an evironment which, as a result of a particular meme (the geeky guy, lacking in clue and failing in the social graces) which makes it a hostile environment for women.
I want to end the second. I think ending the second will go a long way to reducing the first, because they won't have the comfortable camoflage of being lumped in with the graceless.
I also think that saying Geeky Dudes can't figure out how to interact with women is bullshit. It's not rocket science. I think the culture is giving them an excuse to be dicks, and since it's not being put down (in the way that racism was put down, with social norms refusing to accept it) it continues.
I'm sorry but your continued behavior in this discussion appears to be in bad faith, as such I am terminating the discussion between us. I am truly sorry we could not have a productive conversation. Best of luck to you.
Really? You think I am being dishonest in what? My opinions? My use of quoted material to support my conclusions? My level of snark?
If you think me such a bad actor why do you wish me any luck at all? I'm serious. When I see someone I think is trolling, I tell them where to get off. Why do you see the need to be what feels passive aggressive to me?
Pollock: "Gonna pull a Frist and do a in depth Diagnosis? The vet must be mentally unstable, right?"
I don't even know if she's a vet, and if so, I don't think it was service that created the problem, what with an entirely more obvious likely source of the trauma.
What? You were talking about me. You said that my assessments of potential for harm must be some sort of PTSD. Let me refresh your memory:
I quoted you. I referred to a specific comment, and you say that it's misrepresented because…
Comprehension problem. You're making up my position instead of asking me what it is.
What? You made a statement. I took that as being your position. Now I have to ask you what your position is because the one you staked out… makes you look bad?
Seems to me you'd be better served with clearer communication (which would save you having to repeat all those clarifications because people "didn't understand" your words).
The converse is "if your actions can't be distinguished from those of consent, then change them or be considered consenting."
That means the default state of the world is consenting? I'd say that's a predatory way to look at people. I happen to assume that unless someone offers clear consent, I don't have permission.
Oddly, I've never felt any concern over being accused of harassment. I talk to people if they seem interesting. I flirt with women I find attractive. If they don't seem to be responding, I stop.
I don't get yelled at, so it seems a pretty functional model. I'm gonna stick with it, rather than insist someone prove they don't consent. I'd rather ask for permission, than hope on forgiveness.
Crap… that was for a different forum: though the last graf applies here too.
No sorry, that was for here. I didn't get enough sleep last night, and I've managed to confuse myself.
Sam: Because that ISN'T VICTIM BLAMING. A victim is not at fault for BEING A VICTIM. But if we can't look at and discuss what behaviors make people more likely to be targets, we're never going to actually protect people from being raped.</i<
The biggest thing which seems to lead to rape is people who sanction boundary testing. Not the victims, but the surrounding people. Look at the video I put in. The people around knew what was going on, but most of them didn't care; some even encouraged it.
When someone says, "She didn't say no properly" that encourages the rapist. Because there is always a way to rationalise the next question. "She said no to fucking, but maybe a blowjob isn't out of the question". "she said no to a drink, but maybe she wouldn't think I was trying to take advantage of her with alcohol if I asked her to dinner".
Even saying, "Never" is argued around: "She said never, but she doesn't know me, so that's plainly an overreaction. If I talk to her, let her get to know me then she might change her mind."
A huge part of the reason women don't like people trying to buy them drinks is that it's often a test. The drink buyer is trying to see if he can get past a no. If he can get past one, he'll try to get past the next.
That people look the other way is why guys who are just trying to make contact get so much short shrift.
I'm going to lock this at 900.
You're contradicting yourself, here. By your own description, you are approaching people and interacting with them without their explicit consent, because you assume that they consent until and unless they indicate otherwise. But earlier on, you say specifically that assuming that is "a predatory way to look at people".
Of course, there are some folks here who think it's utterly insane to consider a casual conversation in a designated social space to be an act of predation…but whenever we try to say so, we get condemned as rape-apologists.
lelnet wrote:
Except for those of us who condemn you as disingenuous hyperbolic panic-mongers for conflating a prudent wariness and reservation of judgement in the absence of sufficient interaction for a better-informed risk assessment with an alleged judgement that every interaction is an automatic Red Alert.
When I make a new acquaintance, I'm evaluating them much more for signs that they'll be timewasters or petty annoyances than I am evaluating them as a potential threat, and at the same time I'm also evaluating them for signs that they'll be amusing/interesting company or a kindred spirit. I'm performing all these evaluations at the exact same time, because why wouldn't I?
P.S. For every quality I'm evaluating (and the list I mentioned above is not exhaustive), each gets assigned a distinct risk/reward analysis – they're not all equal. Just mentioning it to forestall the inevitable JAQ-off.
Getting one last in before Ken lowers the portcullis: the repeated question from James Pollock and others about distinguishing the inept from the malicious – that's what the reporting system is for.
As the saying goes: Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern. – when it comes to any behaviours breaching a Code of Conduct a reasonable standard is 3 strikes and you're out. Some people/organisations might prefer a slightly higher standard of proof than three reports of minor misconducts before resorting to expulsion (major misconduct only gets one strike IMO), but the principle remains sound – repetition establishes a pattern, and in order to establish that pattern with rigor and transparency records must exist. That's why all incidents should be considered liable for reporting, and everybody should be encouraged to report all instances of misconduct.
If the boundary-crosser is just ignorant, then the misconduct adjudication process will tell them that they've gone wrong and suggest ways to avoid doing that particular wrong thing in future, and they can move on. If the boundary-crosser is maliciously pretending not to know better when in fact they've transgressed multiple times in very similar ways and been informed by others of what they've done wrong, then there will be a record of multiple reports/warnings, and any halfway decent anti-harassment policy will provide for more severe penalties for repeated offences. The ignorant distinguished from the malicious: done.
@Terry Karney @tigtog @Anyone else that cares to shed light on the subject
What new rules or changes to existing rules would work? Are you advocating harsher punishments? Broader definitions of behavior? Separate but equal seating? What, specifically, would you have people do to fix this problem? People keep attacking James but, so far, his is just about the only game in town. Why not put up a table of your own?
To avoid reinventing an easily Googled wheel which IMO should have been a basic starting point for all of you who are JAQing-off on this thread, I'll just link you to the Con Anti-Harassment Project's outline and quote the introduction:
The three part action plan is to
* Establish a firm and actionable anti-harassment policy
* Articulate their policies in their relevant materials with clear guidance for reporting procedures
* Act upon these verbal and physical harassment policies with prompt and consistent responses to harassment complaints.
* * *
As I said above, the major change in behaviour I and most others advocate is to report report report report. Reports are the only way to distinguish the inept from the malicious.
P.S. reports will also distinguish vexatious complainants from the genuinely distressed.
Lelnet: You're contradicting yourself, here. By your own description, you are approaching people and interacting with them without their explicit consent, because you assume that they consent until and unless they indicate otherwise. But earlier on, you say specifically that assuming that is "a predatory way to look at people".
Yeah, no. You seem to be attempting, with the whole, "no stranger contact" thing to manufacture an absurdem.
Since Pollock is discussing the issue of consent re "making a clear, and unequivocal No" the guiding principle of sexual pursuit, that is the context of the use of consent. (see above the issue of scope in definition). I don't assume people want to talk to me. I also don't assume they are looking to meet no one.
Since I am not, as a primary goal in my interpersonal interactions, looking to make sexytimes, and it's it socially acceptable to interact with people in social spaces, I do that.
If they show a lack of interest, I desist.
The problem isn't people approaching others. It's the lack of desist. It's the idea that someone has to be so over the top that no possible doubt can exist in the mind of anyone who is in earshot that no contact is desired, nor to be permitted, before one can be assumed to be not interested.
That's a predatory model. It's a model that says others' agency is assumed to be compromised, ab initio; because they are assumed to be consenting.
JR: What new rules or changes to existing rules would work? Are you advocating harsher punishments? Broader definitions of behavior? Separate but equal seating? What, specifically, would you have people do to fix this problem? People keep attacking James but, so far, his is just about the only game in town. Why not put up a table of your own?
We have. It's just that a slice of the population seems to not want to listen to it.
Assume that people have agency. That they are allowed to be not interested. That if they express a general non-interest, it's to be respected. That assuming they are eager to be ogled because they are female in public is bullshit.
That when some one does something which causes offense, it will be treated as offensive. That there be actual guidelines (notice that Scalzi isn't dictating what the guidelines much be to the cons he attends, just that they exist, and be published in a public way: not in a file cabinet beneath the elevator shaft, in an office open on the fifth Weds, of the month).
Treat women as people. As adults who know their own minds. Take no for an answer. If she's not interested, take it a face value. If she gets interested, she'll let you know. If what you want is just sex, go to a speed dating session.
If what you need is confidence, go to a speed dating session. Join a club Pick one about something which interests you; but which you've not pursued, Mycology, birdwatching, urban foraging, whatever. Put yourself in the spot of the interested newbie, and focus on the subject. Interact with the people; from the position of minor ignorance. That will get skills with people.
But making the women do the work? That's a recipe for disaster. It's rewarding the guy who is a jerk. It's punishing the object of his jersish behavior (he's caused offense, and she has to "help him not do it to someone else". Nonsense. When I got hit by a bike messenger, no one said, "Did you gently correct him on the best ways in which to negotiate a one way street from the wrong direction?". No, what they asked was, "did you hit him?" Did you call a cop?(when I said I hadn't done either, some wondered why not; to both).
It's not the responsibility of someone who has been transgressed upon to teach the transgressor not to do it. When the culture is saying it is, the culture is in the wrong. Are women angry? Damned straight. They have a right to be. Same way any group being told to put up with being harrassed, and treated as second class citizen has a right to be angry.
It's pretty offensive to tell them it's up to them to make people stop being douchecanoes. That if they were more kind, forbearing; willing to take these poor souls under their wings and mentor them all would be well.
No. If there is anyone who has that responsiblity (other than the dudes who are giving offense) it's the larger community. They can be gentle, or not; but those guys who aren't being creepy, who get upset at being lumped… they can damned well take a little effort and call out creeping when they see it.
It's not that hard. When I've done it (I did it at work today) the look is "shit, I got caught". Have I been threatened? Yes. Was it scary? Some.
But I was threatened because he was being a creep. He stalked off. If I'd not stepped in, I don't know that he'd have committed an actual assault, but he was sure as hell working on outright harrassment (that event was the 1987 NasFic. The rules against being sexually predatory weren't quite as clear). Did he bear a grudge? So I heard. Did he do anything about it? No, which is what I expected when I came up and asked if the woman was unhappy with his behavior. I expected him to get huffy. I expected him to posture. He might have swung at me. But once it was over, he was going to go away.
And he wasn't likely to do it again that weekend.
Which is what I wanted.
Are most dudes planning to prey on women? No. Are most guys who are being "creepy" planning to? I don't know. I do know that as many as one in eight might be a predatory sort.
That bothers me. People like that make the world a less happy place. They make women unsecure in their persons, 24/7. That bothers me, a lot. I am against it.
But the culture seems to not believe it exists. Maybe they don't want to think about that many rapists among us. Maybe they are afraid they will be accused of rape because, "she regretted it the next morning". Certainly the MRA/PUA crowd likes that fable. People say, "the feminsts hate sex", or, "they think all men are rapists". It's not true. Feminists don't think that. Even the RadFems don't think that. They use some extreme rhetoric. They say things which can be misinterpreted that way (certainly Dworkin and McKinnon get taken in snippets, stripped of context, and then interpreted).
Do a lot of women think any man might be possible of raping them? I hope so. Because the reports are that it's true. does it pain me (as someone who doesn't want to rape anyone: and who thinks that unwanted sex = rape: no violence required)? Yes, some. But since I also know that the worry has abstract elements, and I am not going to do it, I don't care.
I mean anyone might be a murderer too. It's not something I worry about someone fearing; because I'm not going to try to kill them for no reason. I don't expect them to be delusional enough to try to defend themselves pre-emptively. Same for women and the risk of rape.
To go back to the car analogy. On the road (esp. on my motorcycle) I assume any car might move into my space. That might kill me. I move to avoid it. I don't think they have ill-intent (unless, as happens in New Jersey, initiating a lane change causes people to try to change lanes through me).
They have a right to worry; because they have a cause to worry.
We, as a community (larger than fandom, but from little acorns, etc.) have a duty to make the shit in the video I posted not happen. No one should be allowed to prey on the weak and vulnerable, and we ought not let people test for weakness and vulnerability, which is what the predators do, often under the guise of, "I didn't know".
P.P.S. That should be reporting patterns are the only rigorous way to distinguish the inept from the malicious complained-of, and/or the vexatious from the distressed complainants.
And what tigtog said. Report. I'm not a no-tolerance sort of guy. I know that sometimes it's gonna be the dude who was the last straw who gets lashed out at.
And he ought to be talked to… but not by the person who was offended. The offense is real. An impartial party (by which I mean one with no personal stake in things) can talk to him. Can talk to her, find out what she saw, how she felt.
Can not say, "are you sure". We don't ask people who were transgressed in other sorts of way to prove to our satisfaction that they didn't mistake what happened. We take a statement, talk to the other side, and make decisions from there.
In a con of, say 600, the odds of an accidental bit of clueless creepery being repeated three times, slim. Make it five, if that makes you more comfortable. But if you have sanctions: they better be solid. No modifying things because, "he's really a decent guy". If you think lifebans are a bad idea, don't put them in; or don't make them the only choice.
Because one of the things operant conditioning teaches us is that negative reinforcement has to be absolute. If you skip, then you have variable reinforcement. Variable reinforcement is a stronger way to get a repeat behavior.
For anyone watching, I don't disagree with anything Terry's written above, we're just looking at two adjacent sides of the same 12-sided dice.
Further reading for those interested: The Open Back-Up Project has the goal to encourage people to overcome the Bystander Effect (aka the Somebody Else's Problem invisibility field) and ask people whether that other person is bothering them and whether they'd like some help, and they link to several resources to help potential Backer-Uppers learn more about how to do it effectively and safely.
ObGeekEmbarassmentMoment: I can't believe that I just described a singular die as dice. Ugh.
tigtog: I take part in open backup. I also teach people how to use basic ASL to get the idea they want intervention without having to say it out loud/across a large space.
(yes Pollock, I do think women can ask for help: I don't think it's mandatory).
I also teach it so that I can try to ask them, on the down-low, and not run so much risk of making their interlocutor unhappy if I'm wrong.
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like the old rules, to me. ("Try to talk to someone, and if they indicate they're not interested, then leave them alone.") Which folks 'round here are screaming aren't tough enough, because they don't result in me getting thrown out of the con for it and they require the uninterested person to actually indicate their lack of interest to me as a precondition for me being guilty of anything.
Frankly, I do assume that people I want to talk to are human. Also, intelligent and interesting. Otherwise, I wouldn't have any desire to talk to them. (Frankly, even back in the old days, when I wouldn't have said no to sex with someone I'd just met if it were offered, I still wasn't exactly trolling for it, and still didn't have much interest — sexual or otherwise — in someone I didn't think was at least as human, smart, and interesting as I was.) Someone says they don't want to interact with me, that's fine…I leave them alone. No problem. Possibly some hurt feelings if they're especially rude about it, but that's just life.
According to that endlessly-cited survey designed to get guys to confess to rape, at least 84% of men are living by those rules without any problem. Do you really think that changing the rules to make it easier to punish those 84% is going to do anything at all about the rapists?
I hadn't heard the ASL idea before, Terry. I like it.
One other idea I have, that I haven't seen advocated elsewhere, is that con committees/boards could actively share details of those who have been expelled/banned for misconduct at their events, rather like casinos share the photos of card-counters etc. In the interests of fairness, they should also share details of anyone who has successfully appealed against the ruling that resulted in the expulsion/ban.
lelnet, it's not just about preventing rape. It's also about chilly/hostile climate and a bunch of other harassing behaviours that ruin the con experience for people. It's also not just about getting people chucked out, and repeating those falsehoods is a great signal to others regarding your priorities and your perspicacity.
lelnet: Which folks 'round here are screaming aren't tough enough, because they don't result in me getting thrown out of the con for it
Bullshit.
No one is saying that anyone who gets complained about should be banned, just cause. No one has said (other than you; and I think you were attempting satire) that people should be banned from interaction.
What has been said is that there are people who act in creepy ways, and the back-bending apologia (they are all just "on the spectrum" guys, who never learned to talk to women: They just have poor social skills: They are just too literal, you need to be clear with them: Oh! you want to ban flirting!) isn't doing the community any good.
What the greatest contention has been (in not quite 850 comments) is the idea that it's the job of the women at the con to wean these little tykes away from their creeping ways, and that if she doesn't make an total, and unequivocal NO, plain and clear, to the meanest of understandings, then she didn't say no at all.
That, we disagree with, in toto. The rest of it, that people should relax, and treat each other as adults: until they transgress a boundary, no one on, "the other side" has had any issue with.
That needing to describe the ways in which the culture(s) have made it incumbent on women to take proactively defensive mindesets, and to assume a baseline level of risk from men they don't know was required; to try and and make the reasons why the idea of some magical form of NO was completely unrealistic caused derailments and distractions from that point is a sad comment on just how endemic the problems are.
That people can discount the testimonial evidence of blogposts, personal narratives; and observations, because they have no personal experience of it, and so it's obviously not really that big a deal, is a sad commentary on those people.
That such a position isn't unusual, is a differently unpleasant fact of the culture(s), we live in.
Yes.
Because a large part of how they get away with rape is that no one calls out the things they do. It's called, "socially clueless", and otherwise excused.
So they get herd immunity.
On the "train them into what you want to see" model Pollock has been advocating it works too. If what one wants is an environment which isn't hostile to women, then making it something the men want too is gonna be the way to go.
When an uptick in rapes was happening in Jerusalem there was a proposal for curfew: Golda Meir thought it was a good idea, if you put a curfew on men, then they couldn't rape.
If guys are using "creepy" behavior to set up rapes, then making the cost of those behavior higher, means they will stand out more.
Neither am I. Happily married. And even when single, picking up strange girls for casual sex wasn't on the agenda. I mainly wanted to meet new potential-friends. For a while, it worked pretty well.
Yep. Me too. No disagreement there.
My objection isn't to desisting. I've done plenty of that.
But it remains hypocritical to say both that you talk to people and desist if they indicate a lack of interest, AND (in the same post, even) that it's predatory to assume that it's the uninterested person's responsibility to indicate their lack of interest in one's conversation before expecting one to desist.
I'm not asking them to educate all mankind on how to approach them. Just say "no" if they mean no.
Then I don't see that you have any problem.
Question: Do you really think women are to get men? That the things they complain of are really just benign problems being blown out of proportion, and they will decide to wage vendetta against someone who just talks to them?
You are conflating two things.
1: Conversation.
2: Sexual advances.
The entire discussion with Pollock (from whence comes the statement that lack of consent is the default) is about sexual advances. The idea that harassment isn't really harassment if the victim hasn't "opted out" forcefully enough; because if they fail to do that the assumed state is consenting.
Even at that, there is a level to which one has to get some consent to interact with people: if I approach a group and some member of it turns away, I'm going to read that as an overt withdrawal of the implied consent (not implicit; there is a subtle distinction) which comes of being in a social setting.
But, by the same token, I'm not going to go up to someone I don't really know, if I see them eating in the restaurant coffee shop. That is a place with an implied lack of consent.
Anecdote: I was speaking at a convention this past March. I was talking about interrogation. Person I met when I collected my schedule expressed interest in the panel, but was working. I said I'd come by afterwards and talk with them.
So I did. We talked about how interrogations work. So I did some demo. In the course of it I found out what this person's SO's name was. From various parts of the subsequent conversation the SO sounded like an interesting person. It also came up that the lot of us were all some slice of poly.
Next day I saw the SO speaking with some people (she had a pretty distinctive name). She was attractive to me. I didn't go up and introduce myself. Why? Because I had no other reason to, and the means by which I'd found out who she was (which would have come up) could be seen as creepy.
It happens she would have liked me to come up, because she'd been interested in the panel, and having been told of me was curious to meet me. But the better part of treating her kindly was to err on the side of caution.
Did it make the con less fun? No. Did I meet interesting people? Yes. Were some of them women? Yes. Was there flirting? Yes. Did I initiate some of it? Yes.
Do I have a problem with any of it? No. If I got the idea it wasn't being well received, I stopped. Some of it was completely missed (as I found out later). Did I feel put upon? No. if she was interested, and I stopped flirting, she could pick the banter back up.
It's all about letting other people have agency; and respecting that agency.
I'm not asking them to educate all mankind on how to approach them. Just say "no" if they mean no.
They do.
Analogy. Someone walks into a store. Clerk at the door says, "can I help you find anything?"
"Not right now".
Is that a no? Yes. And we know it is. If the clerk badgers them we say they were being jerks, and we may decide not to go back to that store.
But when a woman says, "not right now", it's treated by many as if she said, "come back in ten minutes". If she gets offered a drink, and declines, she is often badgered, and when she says this was a jerk move people say, "What's with you? You should be flattered that someone offered to buy you a drink", or, "It's just a drink, what's the harm in being nice to him".
When he was being rude to her, and not accepting that she said no. If she complains, people say, "oh, the Anti-Fun Brigade is out in force, they want to make it a crime to buy someone a drink".
Which isn't true. We want to make it possible to decline that drink, without being called rude, or bitchy, or stuck up, or, "anti-fun".
Thank you very much Terry Karney and tigtog for taking the time and effort to respond to my questions.
The problem with setting hard boundaries is that the harrassers will use that as an excuse to rules lawyer their way around the rules: " The rules say A is prohibited, but I did A', which is TOTALLY different! The harrassers already know the rules, and are expert at confusing or obfuscating the issue. That's because we aren't dealing with" socially awkward or innocent offenders here, the harrassers know damn well what they are doing, and just insist on seeing women as property to be dominated.
What we really need is a public shaming website, one where the names of repost offenders can be listed so that they can be banned by convention organizers before they get registered and become a problem in more conventions. With a list such as that in place and a" three strikes you're out" policy, I wouldn't have had to comfort a friend of mine this weekend, as she's being stalked and was in mortal fear that her stalker would get into the con before the weird could get to registration not to let him in.
Not all of them, certainly. My wife isn't. My female friends aren't. Probably not even a number proportional to the 16% of men who are arguably rapists. But if none of them were, I'd still be eligible to give blood, because I wouldn't have been gang-raped in jail after a woman I never approached or spoke to or even more than casually looked at (and indeed I wouldn't have been able to identify, because we were at different tables in a crowded food court, so it could have been any of dozens) reported me to the police for "stalking" her.
Getting forcibly ejected from a con is definitely less serious than getting gang raped and a criminal record. But my willingness to trust absolutely in the universal benevolence of women given the power to unilaterally condemn anyone they feel like simply because of their own subjective feelings (or the reasonableness of those charged with deciding who needs punishment and who doesn't) died screaming in terror and pain in that jail cell when I was 15, while the cops watched and laughed.
@Terry Karney:
As the portcullis begins to close, I am loath to construct a lengthy post in response to you.
However,
It amuses me that you got defensive a bit upthread because you just misspelled Pollock's name by accident.
You became mad that he assumed it was on purpose. How unfair! After all, you apologized. He had no right to get all up in your grill about it, amirite?
Of course, he asked you to stop several times, made it pretty clear he wanted his name spelled correctly, but, gee, shucks, you made a mistake and you apologized. It certainly wasn't malice.
He's the immature jerk for being mad, and his upset-ness at the spelling is his problem.
I hope you do see that that comes across (to me at least) more than a skosh hypocritical of you?
This morning in text messages. For context, you should know that while on the clock, the company policy is no cursing and no sexual jokes (includes intimate body part related jokes, from any gender to any gender).
Kat: So
Kat: Male coworker comes in this morning and is grabbing labels for his printer
Kat: Asks me my due date, mentions his sister was born that day, I tell him that women rarely give birth on their due dates for various reasons
Kat: I'm not paying attention, I'm busy with paperwork
Kat: Then I hear "you're supposed to laugh because I called my sister a cunt"
Kat: I go, "do what now" pretty sure I misheard him
Hubby: *cough*
Hubby: Wut.
Kat: But no, he repeats "you're supposed to laugh because I called my sister a cunt"
Kat: so I give him the most chilly smile imaginable and tell him that I'm not laughing because it's not funny
Kat: he goes "oh" and starts out the door
Kat: and I go "it's actually pretty offensive and you need to stop" but he's already gone
Kat: Signs you are going to have a good day today: coworker tells you a joke in which the punchline is apparently "my sister is a cunt"
Some people are terminally clueless.
Grifter: You are loathe to make a lengthy response, but you make a detailed one.
Ok. The thing is, he's made a big deal about how he says things, and people need to take them as read: But when I saw I'd made a mistake, and had the courtesy to apologise; he not only seems to have ignored it, but he did the thing he has spent huge amounts of space accusing others of… not only did he misrepresent my position; he accused me of actually doing it with intent, and malice.
And you think my taking some offense at his inconsistency is hypocritical.
lelnet: in the universal benevolence of women given the power to unilaterally condemn anyone they feel like simply because of their own subjective feelings (or the reasonableness of those charged with deciding who needs punishment and who doesn't) died screaming in terror and pain in that jail cell when I was 15, while the cops watched and laughed.
What you relate is awful.
But the idea that women can, "unilaterally" ruin someone's life because a convention has a policy which makes harassing them more explicitly forbidden isn't true.
The idea that people are arguing for, "The universal benevolence of women" is a strawman. No one has said no woman will ever abuse a system. What has been said is the idea that having such a system will lead to a rash of unjust accusations and con-going careers destroyed is unbelievable.
It's also not really your accuser's fault that the cops stood by and laughed, unless you are arguing said person was aware that this was possible, and wanted it to happen.
Because the usual response to such allegations is they get dismissed. Stuebenville, the rapists have people saying what a tragedy it is those boys had their lives ruined.
A woman who has cerebral palsy was deemed to have consented because she has enough motor control that she could have bitten her attacker. Mind you that's all the motor controls she had; her possible (almost certain) fear of the response to such an attempt at defense wasn't deemed relevant: she didn't show enough of that, "unequivocal NO", and so she was presumed to consent.
Do you really think that keeping the present system in place, where a significant portion of the women are regularly harassed is a good thing? Where the sorts of abuse you suffered are made easier to inflict on people?
I don't. I think having clear policies of abuse limits it: it also limits the sort of thing that happened to you, because it clarifies expectations.
Oh, and Grifter, if what you were trying to do is accuse me of lying; of misspelling his name with intent… own your shit.
If your stressing of malice and purpose served some other purpose, feel free to elucidate.
It do wonder, however, why you feel so strong a need to defend Pollock/attack me, esp as the window to address substantive issues is, as you say, closing.
DEFINITIVE ANSWER (to titular question): Everybody gets angry because the pussy-footing inherent in every real life exposure to the subject of creepers and/or harassment turns into a game of telephone with absolutely no feedback.
The complainer knows who they are complaining about.
The defendant doesn't know who is complaining _or_ what actual act was considered the bad-act (because details would reveal the complainant).
The complainant is never told what disciplinary action was taken, if any, since that would violate the privacy of the defendant.
By definition the defendant almost always thinks that their action was not actionable anyway, particularly since they never get enough detail to know what particular was problematic, and the existence of any complaint just makes them more aggressive for feeling assaulted for being themselves.
In short the entire exercise of harassment complaints and their aftermath could _not_ be better designed to piss off all parties involved.
Then, whenever the subject comes up Each and Every person who has ever made a complaint believes that they were wrong and that the complaint system is futile, so they advocate nuke from orbit.
Meanwhile, whenver the subject comes up Each and Every person who has ever been the victim of a complaint believes them all to be vague witch-hunts designed to make one guilty of all with no redress at all.
—
I had a friend who was a bouncer at a club. When someone would come up to him to complain about someone else getting too close on the dance floor or whatever he'd say "Did you tell them to fuck off?" The answer was always "no" and he'd say "well if you tell them to fuck off and they don't, then you can come back to me and I'll do something."
Same guy, someone would come into the club and walk straight up to him and say "I have a restraining order against (indicated person). You have to make them leave." His answer was "No. I don't. They were here first and I am not here so that you can chase people out of my club just because you hate them."
—
The core problem, universally, is one of confrontation. We have lost our will to buck-up and deal with people. In point of fact you do _not_ actually have the right to exist in a harassment-free, trouble-free, conflict-free bubble of fairy princess magic. You never have. It doesn't matter if you are the harassed or the harasser.
In theory you are supposed to be able to run to authority _after_ you have done your own due diligence in solving your own circumstance. Now nobody is asking you to take on a knife-and-gun wielding agressor all alone before seeking help, but that thing where the it used to be that if a guy touched your butt you would slap his face, well that's really not "more than a human being should have to bear."
I have a distinct memory of being about seven, so 1972 or so, and standing in front of Armando Isserilli's house, listening to kids my own age shouting "I'll sue you" "no my parents will sue you" and thinking "when we are adults the world is going to be really screwed up with all these people thinking that suing each other is the thing to do."
Well I was right, and in microcosm it's just as bad with the running to HR instead of just dealing with things.
I have been harassed (I was pretty hot when I was young). I have been accused of harassment. I have been penalized for my gender (female manager on first day: "I'm taking a risk on you. I have never had a man work for me that wasn't a disaster, except Jay, but he's gay" — I determined to never tell her I was gay too just to see how she acted — So I had an out but I never took it, and she made my "straight" life a living hell).
So why does _talking_ about this stuff make people so angry?
Because nobody alive today has _ever_ had a satisfying experience in getting "their side" of any issue "through the system".
Because the system isn't supposed to have to deal with all these tiny and oft imaginary slights.
lelnet, I just want to acknowledge your history that you shared and condemn the brutality of the police who decided to punish you without trial by gaoling you with those sexually violent men. Nobody I know would advocate that as a reasonable response to what you were accused of, and nobody is suggesting that this is what should happen as a result of con anti-harassment policies.
I understand that your history leads you to distrust the whole concept however, and I sympathise with that inclination while still disagreeing with the conclusions you have drawn. I'm leaving my part of the discussion with you now.
*"believes they were _wronged_" — typo correction
Robert White,
Rene Walling knows that it was Genevieve Valentine who made a complaint, he knows exactly what she reported him for, and Genevieve Valentine knows exactly how he was disciplined.
James Frankel knows that it was Elise Matheson who made a complaint, he knows exactly what she reported him for, and Elise Mathesen knows exactly how he was disciplined at the Con and also by his employer.
There are other documented instances of reported harassment where the both parties know who is the complainant, what behaviour was complained of, and what disciplinary measures were taken, the above two are just the most recent.
Are you totally sure of your facts regarding who is informed of what?
Are you
@Terry Karney:
No, I wasn't accusing you of doing it on purpose.
I was (attempting to be at least slightly gentle while) accusing you of hypocrisy, for having what has seemed little to no willingness to accept the socially blundering mistakes of others which may offend someone, while getting defensive about your own. It was an attempt to give you a bit of perspective.
Everyone makes mistakes. The question is what to do about the mistakes, and when it's justified to assume they aren't mistakes, but rather malice.
One of the issues in this debate has been "what about the people who do things that are arguably creepy, inadvertently?" And the response from several on here has been the relative equivalent of "Tough shit", or "No, predators test the boundaries" or even "No, they know, that they might not is bullshit!"
You yourself opined that if a person who has done something that was only really annoying because he was the 50th person to do it, complaining to security was an appropriate response (as opposed to saying "Don't do that, it's annoying" which, to be fair, was listed as an option as well). You said that it sucks, but too bad because women have it worse (a paraphrase). So therefore the 50th dude is responsible for the other 49. Oh, but odds are he'll only get a vaguely threatening talking-to from these authorities because of the complaint. That's reassuring, and not at all disproportionate to the actual "infraction".
And, for the record, I think you have too much faith in some people's ability to look past their own ego and/or biases resulting from previous experiences. For a real-world example: If you've got words written across your ass, male or female, I'm probably going to read them. That doesn't mean I actually have interest in your ass itself. I live in a college town, where a definite subset of clothing has lettering like that. As previously noted, happily married with no wandering eye; yet I've been accused in the not-crazily-distant-past of "staring" before, from either people who I wasn't even looking at, or who, like I said, had something eye-catching that had literally nothing to do with their biological attributes. This is what I'm used to. It is as valid, though obviously far less harmful, as the experiences of people who have been harassed. It is privilege that has made it so that I lack that experience of theirs.
But it's also privilege, albeit of a different sort, not to ever have gotten those false accusations of Bad Behavior.
I understand and respect the accounts of, and abhor the details that are accounted, of the shit women in our fucked-up-gender-politics-society have to put up with (I posted http://www.notinthekitchenanymore.com/ upthread, which is granted gaming, not cons, but is assured to be angering nonetheless at the behavior being listed). Is it so unreasonable to ask that a measure of care be exercised, though?
As I noted much earlier, phrasing it differently, a lot of the arglebargle on one side boils down to the fact that men who have never harassed are more exposed to being falsely accused of Bad Behavior, but are being told to shut up about that concept because women have it worse. This results in an anger which has been known to result in the defense of Bad Things. Get someone mad enough, and they'll say the dumbest shit. (Doesn't justify it, of course, but makes it expectable from a subset).
It also results in charges from some folks that they're defending Bad Things, even when they aren't. A lot of the arglebargle on the other side is from that side's penchant of conflating discussion of simple faux pas with danger and/or true harassment.
Everyone makes mistakes. Perhaps it would behoove us all to think about what we'd need to be thinking of if a person is an asshole, but didn't treat them under that assumption until we had to. Perhaps, to quote another great philosopher:
"Be nice. Until it's time to not be nice."
I probably won't respond again as the portcullis closes. I'd hate to use up the last slots when others have such contention, so that'll likely be the last thought, such as it is, out of me on this subject.
oops – Frankel should be Frenkel.
"Of course, if you're OK with throwing out the inept with the evil, then don't bother differentiating them.
Ooh, more putting things never said into the argument. It's cute little rhetorical trick too; not assigning it to any one person."
Sorry, I didn't quote someone saying this.
Let me do so now.
"No. I am not required to spend time, effort, mental energy, clueing in the clueless."
There you go.
"What? You were talking about me. You said that my assessments of potential for harm must be some sort of PTSD. Let me refresh your memory:"
Surprisingly, sir, this is not even a tiny little bit about you.
"The entire discussion with Pollock (from whence comes the statement that lack of consent is the default) is about sexual advances."
Not so much, no.
"You are conflating two things.
1: Conversation.
2: Sexual advances."
These two things are not at all mutually exclusive, AND it's not at all unusual for someone doing one to be interpreted as the other.
Is it true that guys who press limits will try to defend themselves by some variant of "hey, we're just talking here." Yes.
This is clearly delineated boundaries are important, so that the neutral third-party can examine the situation and see clearly what is and what is not happening.
"Do I have a problem with any of it? No."
That's kind of your assumption, isn't it? Why should I take your word for it?
"But when I saw I'd made a mistake, and had the courtesy to apologise; he not only seems to have ignored it"
Thing is, if you come to the page AFTER the offending statement has been posted but BEFORE the follow-up has been posted, you DO NOT SEE the follow-up as you compose your reply.
You're still an asshole, just a slightly apologetic one. Happy now?
"But the idea that women can, "unilaterally" ruin someone's life because a convention has a policy which makes harassing them more explicitly forbidden isn't true."
Ruin their life? Probably not. Ruin their con? Almost definitely.
Is the enforcement of sanctions following valid reports inadequate? evidence suggests yes.
Is the number of unreported incidents significant? This also seems quite likely.
Is the number of false (or misidentified) accusations zero? It is not.
I suggested some fairly simple rules that would make increasing enforcement possible without substantially increasing the risk of false positives. You find these utterly unacceptable.
Well, then, do you prefer leaving policies as is, or increasing the possibility of false accusation? (Note, this is my first foray into this part of the problem.)
While I support the removal of persons who are unable or unwilling to meet the standards of normal human interaction, I think it important that this be done without significantly increasing the chance of ejecting the innocent (Yes, Mr. Karney, I know that you find this unacceptable. I just don't care what you think any more.)
"Oh, and Grifter, if what you were trying to do is accuse me of lying; of misspelling his name with intent… own your shit."
Malicious intent or just careless disregard of me as a human being. Both wrong.
Own your shit, as it were.
"Because a large part of how they get away with rape is that no one calls out the things they do. It's called, "socially clueless", and otherwise excused."
Yeah. I did not see this happen anywhere in this thread. I don't think anyone offered any kind of excuse for "socially clueless" rape, or any other kind of rape. In fact, I think one of the VERY rare cases where 100% of the participants agree fully would be with the statement "rapists should be imprisoned" (following due process, of course… there ARE a lot of lawyers here)
Pollock: You think, in a discussion where the topic of ejecting people from conventions is a major point that
is the same as
Then I begin to think you 1: don't understand how english works, 2: don't care that you are misrepresenting arguments; and tacking contextual aspects that weren't said, to things which were: and then going on as if the latter were the actual sentiments expressed, or 3: aren't arguing in good faith, even to the point of willful falsity.
Surprisingly, sir, this is not even a tiny little bit about you.
Really. Then who was the other veteran, imputed to be in Fallujah? Why impute PTSD, with no antecedent, save a reference which appeared to be to my comment about risk assessments.
Here, I'll quote it. The bolded text are my words. The second portion are yours. Explain to me how your words aren't related to mine.
(scans up, option 3 is looking more likely).
You're still an asshole, just a slightly apologetic one. Happy now?
I'm not unhappy. I notice you didn't actually apologise for it. But that's ok, I didn't expect it. You, after all characterise a declarative statement of my position as, "an assumption". Words aren't really your forte.
Hrmn.. ruin their con. Being an ally Looks like this weakens that case. Frenkel wasn't kicked out of the con he harassed at, nor was Walling.
So, not so much.
You admit that the sanctions are inadequate for valid complaints.
You accept that there is more harassment than is reported.
Then you imply the number of false positives is enough to make the idea of better codification a questionable idea.
Based on… Oh right, you believe it, and that should be enough.
While I support the removal of persons who are unable or unwilling to meet the standards of normal human interaction, I think it important that this be done without significantly increasing the chance of ejecting the innocent (Yes, Mr. Karney, I know that you find this unacceptable. I just don't care what you think any more.
I don't think you ever did. I've not seen evidence you really care what anyone thinks (see above about, "telling you she has a husband isn't actually rejecting your advances".
But you don't know what I think. You are most decidedly wrong on my not caring if people who haven't harassed are punished. You admit harassment is a larger problem than reported. You admit the present sanctions are ineffective. But you think the risk to the innocent is too great if we make them more effective.
So the guilty get to cavort, as they have been, because in Pollockland the innocent are suffering too much. The innocent men. The innocent women who are being groped, and otherwise assaulted, well it's their own damned fault: they didn't say no loudly enough.
Explain to me why I should care what you think? Because your moral compass is stuck.
I can believe you didn't see it. You were, however, one of the people doing it. "there are poly people, so it's not a clear rejection". "the women need to take the men aside and give them life lessons when they are being creepy". Those are apologetics for "socially clueless" behavior.
You did them. Own your shit.
Trust me, any disregard I have for you, is not careless.
Crap, he bold tag didn't close. I think it's still clear.
A gazillion comments later, I think the reason why this topic generates so much heat and so little useful discussion is that "both sides" (I actually think there's more than 2 sides, but I'll simplify) stand ready to throw really undeserved but emotionally-charged accusations at people who voice an opinion that isn't 100% the same as theirs.
"Because one of the things operant conditioning teaches us is that negative reinforcement has to be absolute. If you skip, then you have variable reinforcement. Variable reinforcement is a stronger way to get a repeat behavior."
Say, Terry, did your cognitive dissonance kick in here? At all? Or did you just not realize you were advocating one of my positions? I think it's that last one.
Okay, so the comment I have in moderation hell says it's intended to be my final thought…and this isn't another thought, just a comment that I have a comment to Terry that's in moderation hell several posts up.
"Trust me, any disregard I have for you, is not careless."
Then I guess I wasn't wrong to assume you were malicious.
"You think, in a discussion where the topic of ejecting people from conventions is a major point that
"Of course, if you're OK with throwing out the inept with the evil, then don't bother differentiating them.
is the same as
"Of course, if you're OK with throwing out the inept with the evil, then don't bother differentiating them."
Yes, I kind of do.
"Surprisingly, sir, this is not even a tiny little bit about you.
Really. Then who was the other veteran"
What other veteran?
This is a discussion about whether a woman (no, I'm not going to go back and figure out which one) is rational in treating every single person who offers her a drink as a rapist-in-waiting is rational.
Wariness is stable and well-adjusted risk-assessment, similar to driving on the road where there are various dangers, awareness of which is prudent. Assuming that every other person you see is actively seeking to harm you is not (unless you happen to be in a place where it is.) If you are presently inside a facility that treats sexual predators, then treating every person you see as a sexual predator is rational and well-adjusted. If you are presently sitting in a hotel bar at a SF convention, then it is not."
If you, ALSO fear that every person in that hotel bar is waiting for an opportunity to rape you, then you ALSO are not well-adjusted.
Get over yourself. (But thank you for your service to our nation. THAT, you are owed.)
"Hrmn.. ruin their con. Being an ally Looks like this weakens that case. Frenkel wasn't kicked out of the con he harassed at, nor was Walling."
Being as you seem poor at understanding, I'll just charitably assume you didn't get the part where I advocated removing harassers as early as possible, about 50 times now.
No, wait, later on, you quote me on the subject. So you're just… what? Knee-jerk opposed to anything I say?
"You admit harassment is a larger problem than reported. You admit the present sanctions are ineffective. But you think the risk to the innocent is too great if we make them more effective."
Once again, putting this in after quoting me as advocating for MUCH stronger sanctions is what? Oh, yes… you misrepresent my position. In fact, a quick review points out that the sanctions I called for are actually stricter than the ones you called for.
So, once again, I have to call bullshit on you.
"So the guilty get to cavort, as they have been, because in Pollockland the innocent are suffering too much. The innocent men. The innocent women who are being groped, and otherwise assaulted, well it's their own damned fault: they didn't say no loudly enough."
Let's count the misrepresentations here.
1. I called for severe sanctions on harassers. No cavorting, unless they do it outside the con. (Oh, yeah, and if their actions were criminal, I called for involving the police, so perhaps their cavorting is limited to the station-house or even the jail.) But, yes, I suppose they COULD cavort there, and I've suggested nothing to stop it.
2. I suggested that I'd like to see the number of cases of exclusions of people not actually guilty of anything not increase significantly. To you, this works out to "the innocent are suffering too much" Newsflash, if the innocent are suffering AT ALL, they are suffering TOO MUCH.
3. Your overactive imagination that says "gee, if you make it easy to see the transgression, you make it hard to ignore and increase the likelihood that your complaint will be, MUST be, taken seriously or decrease the possibility that the offender skates by exploiting ambiguity" is the same as "it's your own damned fault" is the problem here.
" I don't think anyone offered any kind of excuse for "socially clueless"
I can believe you didn't see it. You were, however, one of the people doing it.
You seem to have cut off a VERY meaningful word when quoting me (and you wonder why I keep complaining about you misrepresenting me.)
Let me refresh your memory. I said "I don't think anyone offered any kind of excuse for socially-awkward rape, or any other kind of rape."
Then, you offer examples of me… not offering any kind of excuse for socially-awkward rape, or any other kind of rape. Transparent, really.
Sorry. This part is poorly constructed.
"3. Your overactive imagination that says "gee, if you make it easy to see the transgression, you make it hard to ignore and increase the likelihood that your complaint will be, MUST be, taken seriously or decrease the possibility that the offender skates by exploiting ambiguity" is the same as "it's your own damned fault" is the problem here."
What I mean to say is that my point is "if you make it easy to see the transgression by making it clear and unambiguous, you
A)make it hard to ignore and increase the likelihood that your complaint will be, MUST be, taken seriously and
B)decrease the possibility that the offender skates by exploiting ambiguity.
You read this as "well it's their own damned fault"
SOME men (definitely not all, but those who do, well, they're vocal and persistent) get REAL mad about conversations about sexual harassment, and about women feeling freer to call out creeping, because they are aware that their social license to creep on women and harass them is in the process of vanishing.
Other get upset because although they're not avid creepers, they're too lazy and don't like the prospect of having to change their behavior, and are too misinformed to realize that these changes are actually going to improve everyone's chances of having happy, consensual flirting and/or casual sex at conferences and in general.
There's the answer.
Relevant:
–Ami Angelwings of the fantastic Escher Girls blog
Link: http://ami-angelwings.tumblr.com/post/54202815892/i-think-what-bugs-mras-and-guys-like-them-so-much
Pollock: Say, Terry, did your cognitive dissonance kick in here? At all? Or did you just not realize you were advocating one of my positions? I think it's that last one.
That the same basic concept is involved, does not mean we are arguing the same position. You have been arguing women need to teach the men who creep them what they did wrong.
I am arguing the community as a whole needs to tell people that creeping is unacceptable. It's not cognitive dissonance on my part; it's that we have very different ideas about what needs to be done.
"Trust me, any disregard I have for you, is not careless."
Then I guess I wasn't wrong to assume you were malicious.
See, there you go with the leaping to unfounded conclusions. 1: It was a conditional statement; phrased in the subjunctive. 2: You are taking a temporally disconnected phrase, made after you said new things, and assuming it is a valid tool for imputig past motive. 3: You are assuming a malice which I said was not present. 4: Disregard (if any) doesn't correlate to malice. I disregard the crossing signals in NYC all the time. It is not casual, it's done while making sure there is no traffic. That my disregard may contain disdain, doesn't imply malice.
Trust me, if I choose to engage in malicious comment, there won't be any doubt (which I thought I'd made plain in my apology, crtl F for Pillock, if it escaped you the first time).
Precisely.
If there was no other veteran, then why the reference to Fallujah? If the reference to Fallujah wasn't relevant, why was it included?
If this was, in fact, some subtle attempt at obscure corelation (of what I don't know, hence the use of obscure) it might explain why you have such a hard time being understood in the way you claim to desire.
Then you need to explain why your example was quoting me, talking about how I go about travelling on the street, in a comment to TM.
So who was this woman? WHy did you bring Iraq into it?
Why should I believe this folderol?
(But thank you for your service to our nation. THAT, you are owed.)
Keep your thanks: In the first place I didn't do it for you, and in the second I find them insincere.
Let me refresh your memory. I said "I don't think anyone offered any kind of excuse for socially-awkward rape, or any other kind of rape."
Then, you offer examples of me… not offering any kind of excuse for socially-awkward rape, or any other kind of rape. Transparent, really.
You ignore the part where I say that excusing the socially awkward enables rapists by providing them herd immunity. You ignore that I am quoting you, because yout combined arguments in that trio are contradictory.
You put words in my mouth of a defamatory nature (saying you know I don't care if innocent people get punished for harassment). You aver in one breath that a single complaint can ruin someone's convention, implying this is a bad thing (as with someone falsely accused), but you also say that sanctions need to be tougher.
Which is it? We need to have women coddle the creeps, yet we need stronger sanctions? Oh, wait; there is a way to reconcile that… if "real harassment (sort of like, "real rape", where someone uses a knife, and jumps out of a dark alley: not that fake rape where he just nags, and presses, and ignores her resistance, because she didn't make her, NO, clear enough) gets punished, but all that "minor misunderstanding harassment" gets rewarded with polite little lectures about how to better approach her next time.
That could be the ticket. The women will feel so much more comforable then.
What I mean to say is that my point is "if you make it easy to see the transgression by making it clear and unambiguous,
Yeah, but you don't actually show any sign of accepting the idea of clear rejection. You have a fantasy in your head that men are "literal" and need a "Firm no." But when shown what the firm no requires, you mocked it.
When shown papers which pointed out that men do know what "no" means, and they ignore it, you poo-pooed the idea.
I don't want to put this into moderation, and I don't want worry that you can't be arsed to follow the link, so I'll quote:
In general, the young women in our focus groups characterized explicit refusals of sex as having negative implications for them. Later in the same group discussion quoted earlier, Sara comments that ‘they’d probably think you were really arrogant if you turned round and said, “I’m not going to have sex with you though, alright” ’, and Liz agrees with her, saying, ‘you’d feel a right prat’. In another focus group, Rachel admits that ‘I’ve very rarely said to someone, “I’m sorry, I’m not interested at all” ’, and Megan agrees that to make such a clear and direct statement would make her ‘feel a complete charlie’. In sum, these young women’s talk about the rudeness and arrogance which would be attributed to them, and the foolishness they would feel, in saying clear and direct ‘no’s, indicates their awareness that such behaviour violates culturally accepted norms according to which refusals are dispreferred actions.
"why the reference to Fallujah? If the reference to Fallujah wasn't relevant, why was it included?"
Because Fallujah is an example where (an American) driver might rightfully assume that everyone she sees is, in fact, actively hostile.
I really can't think of any other situation where such a belief is rational. YOU brought up the driving analogy.
It's not my fault it's a bad one.
My question above was incorrect.
You asked "what other veteran" and my response should have been "what veteran", seeing as how I made no references to veterans at all.
"Keep your thanks: … I find them insincere."
Then you're wrong again. Nothing new.
"You ignore the part where I say that excusing the socially awkward enables rapists by providing them herd immunity."
Nobody's excused any rapes by socially awkward OR socially sophisticated persons, so there's no immunity, herd or otherwise.
"You ignore that I am quoting you"
Yes, when you selectively cut out the part that shows something contrary to the narrative you want to see (and repeat).
"You put words in my mouth of a defamatory nature (saying you know I don't care if innocent people get punished for harassment). "
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims.
"We need to have women coddle the creeps"
Gee, I've suggested treatment ranging from exclusion to use of force including deadly force, and you refer to this as "coddling"?
"you don't actually show any sign of accepting the idea of clear rejection. You have a fantasy in your head that men are "literal" and need a "Firm no." But when shown what the firm no requires, you mocked it."
You just make shit up, don't you?
"When shown papers which pointed out that men do know what "no" means, and they ignore it, you poo-pooed the idea."
Yes, yes you do.
"As to the issue of Socially Awkward Rape apoligia: I remind you that you washed your hands of any responsibility for what happens to a woman who doesn't make a strong enough public NO, even if you thought the advances you saw being made might be unwelcome."
No, that's not what I said at all. And I think you know that full well, and persist anyway. Talk about unwelcome advances.
"you … are actively (look at how much time you've invested in it here) working to keep it easier for them to hide."
Actually, I've invested my time in defending myself from assholes (see my disdain, also) who seem intent on misrepresenting my opinions so's to facilitate labeling me with false and derogatory labels. I don't like it when bullies (that's you… and I find it amazingly humorous just how many traits you share with these "creeps" you abhor) do their work.
But tell me how kicking them out (my ACTUAL position, not that you're interested) makes it "easier for them to hide". Is it because there are more places to hide outside a convention center or hotel than in one?
My opinion boils down to treating other people as if they are fully capable of making their own decisions. I'm sorry you find this notion "fucked up", but I plan to stick to it, thanks.
"You have been arguing women need to teach the men who creep them what they did wrong."
Bzzt. I've been arguing that women (and men) need to impose swift and immediate consequences upon people who engage in inappropriate behavior.
You don't win the big prize, but you DO win the year's supply of Turtle Wax AND a copy of the home game.
Thanks for playing.
I was right… you accidentally argued one of my points BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RECOGNIZE IT AS MINE. LOL.
Pollock: Did you say this: These are all good. I also added that, if there's reason to believe that boundaries were pressed because of ineptness rather than maliciousness, then a few minutes providing guidance may reduce further incidents in the future.
Yes, you did.
So this: "You have been arguing women need to teach the men who creep them what they did wrong."
Bzzt. I've been arguing that women (and men) need to impose swift and immediate consequences upon people who engage in inappropriate behavior.
Is an incorrect statement. It's not the first time you have made incorrect statements about what you said.
Which means you either don't know what you are saying, or you think you can get away with retconning it, and gaslighting those who recall what you did say.
"Did you say this: These are all good. I also added that, if there's reason to believe that boundaries were pressed because of ineptness rather than maliciousness, then a few minutes providing guidance may reduce further incidents in the future."
Yes.
Is that the same as
"women need to teach the men who creep them what they did wrong."
No, it is not. Unless "need to" and "may find advantage from" mean the same thing. I hold that they do not.
"I've been arguing that women (and men) need to impose swift and immediate consequences upon people who engage in inappropriate behavior.
Is an incorrect statement."
Let's go back to my VERY FIRST COMMENT on this thread. http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-18/#comment-1073284
Which ends "The solution is the same as it is in real life… immediate correction of the offending behavior, repeated as necessary."
"It's not the first time you have made incorrect statements about what you said. "
No, it's not the first time YOU have made incorrect statements about what I said.
As I said, that's for playing, pick up your case of Turtle Wax on the way out.
Mr. Karney, the window for comments will close soon. Thus, soon we will lose forever the opportunity to see YOUR proposed solution to, well, any of the real or perceived problems discussed thus far. All you've done thus far is A) restate that there IS a problem, and B) whine that the positions of mine that you imagine I have are all sorts of "fucked up".
So, you don't like any of my suggestions. What're yours? Any chance the clock will run out before you offer up any kind of real solutions? I know which way I'm betting.
Put up something useful, or continue to whine about some position you imagine I've taken. Your call. Make it count.
James Pollock, did you miss what Terry and I already wrote upthread from tigtog • Jul 6, 2013 @4:59 pm to Terry Karney • Jul 6, 2013 @6:31 pm (our responses to the question asked by JR • Jul 6, 2013 @4:39 pm)?
As a (I assume) non-creeper male who still finds "creeper" to be excessively vague, I'd just like to point out that I fully agree with this statement. Yes, it needs to be treated as no. Yes, it should be treated as no.
However, "oh, I dunno" isn't no. A million other soft denials of that nature aren't no. The problem is telling the soft-no-that-should-be-treated-as-a-firm-no apart from the soft-no-that's-playful-flirtation.
And, I guess, if playing hard to get wasn't a thing, it couldn't be used as a lazy excuse by assholes and potential rapists.
@James Pollock; you're adding entirely new meanings to the word "disingenuous" with every post you make, and your current exchange about what what @Terry Karney said to provoke your Fallujah, PTSD crack is an example. I set out below the sequence of posts, since I imagine you're relying on them having been lost in the forest above to back up your extremely dubious argumentative strategy.
Terry identified as a having military experience at an early point in the debate, this being relevant to a number of issues including risk perception & management communication strategies:
"Jul 5, 2013 @4:01 pm
An adage in Military Planning (I did a career in Intel/Operations): You can't plan for what the enemy will do, only what the enemy can do. ")
A matter of minutes after that @TM stated
""As to the your answers to my questions, I truly feel sorry for you if that is your mental model. There is a difference between being aware and alert and actively thinking each person around you is a threat. I truly and honestly do not know how to even begin having a mutual discussion with someone who actively believes that someone being social at a social event is suspicious activity."
@Terry Karney pointed out that there was a difference between threat assessment and threat perception which is the sort of thing you'd think is a basic application of reasoning skills but which has repeatedly – throughout this thread – turned out to be something people like you are incapable of grasping.
To reduce it to its basics, threat assessment involves asking the question "Is there a threat?" and threat perception means making the (explicit or implicit) judgement "there is a threat." Part of the problem in this thread has been not merely that you and others seem – or at least wish to portray yourselves as seeming – incapable of drawing the distinction between assessment and perception, but regard the act of assessment at least where carried out by a woman in a social situation and where the threat is of a sexual nature to be an inherently hostile and aggressive act.
Anyway, it was @Terry Karney's response to @TM which you: quote here:
Jul 6, 2013 @12:20 am
"if you think assessing the risk is the same as seeing everyone as an actual danger. A person driving who doesn't see the other cars as a risk isn't doing a good job of driving. That I assess the risk on the street is much the same. It's not fear, it's caution."
Being aware of everything around you is one thing. Actively assuming that everyone you see intends to harm you is quite another. That sort of thinking was right when driving in Fallujah, not as much driving in Ft. Worth. Sounds a LOT like PTSD to my admittedly untrained eye."
So yes; your reference to a city in a warzone and your reference to a condition strongly associated with (if not exclusively suffered by) combat veterans when speaking to someone you knew to be a military veteran does indeed convey the innuendo @Terry Karney complained of. It's called "gaslighting", by the way; implying that your opponent's views are the product of distorted perceptions related to mental illness or instability.
In any rational form of risk assessment, a combination of gaslighting behaviour, plausible deniability, boundary ignoring, rules lawyering, victim blaming and adoption of "plausible deniability" set off a whole lot of red flags.
"So yes; your reference to a city in a warzone and your reference to a condition strongly associated with (if not exclusively suffered by) combat veterans"
Fine. To suggest a situation a driver might face in which every possible person may be expected to be actively hostile, which OTHER scenario should I have used? I STILL can't think of any.
"It's called "gaslighting", by the way; implying that your opponent's views are the product of distorted perceptions related to mental illness or instability."
And what's it called when you're referring to someone else? Someone who is exhibiting signs of mental illness or instability?
It defies rationality that I think that Mr. Karney is the one who lives in fear that every person in the hotel bar is out to rape him. I suspect your perceptions are biased in this matter.
Oh, and before the guillotine comes down, one thing I've noticed is that a lot of people are very keen on telling women to "take precautions for their own safety" but those very people then start backtracking like buggery when those very precautions identify the "wrong people" as threats. And by "wrong people" I mean "people like us" for whatever value of "us" is applied. It's all very well claiming that sexual harassment at cons is all socially awkward nerds mistaking cues; a bit harder when on the evidence it turns out to be the likes of Rene Walling doing it (to say nothing of Isaac Asimov and his ilk from years gone by)
tigtog, I've looked at this one:
Jul 6, 2013 @6:31 pm
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-18/#comment-1075752
It doesn't seem to apply to much of anything useful in developing or applying policies.
In looking at yours comment (not linked to avoid spamfiltering)
I see considerable vagueness. Have a policy. Yes. Distribute the policy. Yes. and "Act upon these verbal and physical harassment policies with prompt and consistent responses to harassment complaints."
Now… what should the policy that we have, that we distribute, and that we respond to actually SAY?
Which, as it turns out, is what I've been advocating.
Pollock: "You put words in my mouth of a defamatory nature (saying you know I don't care if innocent people get punished for harassment). "
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation claims.
Ah.. then you can show where I said I don't care if the innocent get punished for harassment they didn't commit?
Go for it.
why the reference to Fallujah? If the reference to Fallujah wasn't relevant, why was it included?"
Because Fallujah is an example where (an American) driver might rightfully assume that everyone she sees is, in fact, actively hostile.
I really can't think of any other situation where such a belief is rational. YOU brought up the driving analogy.
It's not my fault it's a bad one.
Bollocks.
It was me, talking about me, in explanation to someone else as to why I wasn't being unreasonable in my risk assessment.
You used PTSD, and Fallujah; when quoting the only person in this thread who is admitting to be a vet, but you seem to think it should be obvious it wasn't about me, but about some non-specific woman.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Gee, I've suggested treatment ranging from exclusion to use of force including deadly force, and you refer to this as "coddling"?
You leave out the part of your narrative where you (repeatedly) said women who want to have a better time need to take the creeps and teach them how to better behave. Rewarding bad behavior. Yes, I refer to that as coddling.
No, that's not what I said at all. And I think you know that full well,
You think wrong (in so many ways).
Here is the first place you said it:
It's on the women to teach the guys. Then you said that failure to do this would make the creeping the fault of the women:
I'm not the only person to conclude you have this style of thinking, as Ken said:
(case in point one Jame Pollock: See, again my disregard is plain, no weaseling with games of name: I own it).
As John Beatty reported his wife reacting to your arguments:
My wife, who was a gamer for a while years ago, said to me: "James is the poster child for the casual creeper. Not the actually agressive, dangerous ones, but the man-children who enable their behavior."
In others words, "coddling them".
"2) harassers can't be expected to change if womenkind, as a whole, doesn't change to correct them"
This is also pulled from when I was discussing people who who make approaches, not people who harrass (because again, these are not the same thing at all.)
Coddling them. and denying the womens' right to say when they've been harassed (it was "just an approach, not the same thing at all". Denying the victim's right to say they were victimised, which provides the herd immunity you pretend you don't support).
Mind you, when someone did make a clear, unambiguous, statement of their boundaries, you said you didn't like the way they did it:
Why should I presume you might not do the same if a woman didn't use a properly unsmug and pompous tone?
Then again, you change your tune a lot. When finally called to serious account you said it was, "in the heat of the moment, but when asked in a less directly confrontational way you were fine with what you'd said:
(keep that last sentence in mind, it's relevant later)
I do like this one, where you put the blame on the women, for being too "provocative"
"Well if she wears that and we're turned on but she doesn't sleep with us, she's not playing fair!"
Yes, I see the problem if it's phrased this way. But the "not playing fair" complaint is accurate, in a good many cases.
So women aren't allowed to dress in a way that men think is "too sexy", because they aren't playing fair. The really interesting part is that you agreeing with the idea the of the unfairness of her not sleeping with them.
That's denying women agency.
Third, tell the women who make unreasonable demands that they're making unreasonable demands. (Be prepared for pushback on this!)
Again, denying women agency: The men get to decide what is reasonable in defining harassment, damn straight you should expect pushback. To quote you earlier "Well if she comes into our guild and doesn't do the girly things we want her to do, that's her own fault for being in a man's world."
Oops. This is another one that's fine. If YOU want to join THEIR group, they're free to set any kind of entrance requirements they'd like, and then you're free to accept or decline the offered terms.
I'd say that wanting to spend time with women means they get to set the terms (certainly in terms of what counts as harassment).
so I'm not sure what you mean by "train". If you mean "provide feedback so as to improve this poor fellow's "game", She doesn't have to train ANY of them. The ones who don't offend her don't need training.
But the one's who do, they need training.
You don't have to actually BE open, but you don't get to bite people's head off for assuming that.
Why not? After all, she needs to be sure it's unambiguous, and that's the fastest way to avoid confusion, and if she's not sufficiently unambiguous, then she's consenting to what happens.
Here is one of those places where you said women ought to be taking the lead in showing men what to do:
Let me summarize: I asked “what are you willing to do to lift the ignorant out of ignorance so they won’t be confused for the malicious”.
Coddling.
The nature of your interactions with with other people is none of my business until you make it my business by asking for assistance.
Which ties into that sentence I said to remember:
1. In a crowd of people, surely not all of them are so socially inept that they are blind to a woman being creeped in their midst.
2. Witnesses to an ambiguous situation can do what the perpetrator should have done: they can ask. "Excuse me, is everything OK here?"
Now that one IS offensive. If I'm not sure if a woman's happy with her present social interactions, I should monitor her and if I'm curious, pop in and ask "Pardon me, miss, do you need a MAN'S help?"
The situation was observed (not that you monitored her. that it was observed) and you say you have zero obligation.
Compare that to I'm going to hold on to this one. Each and every one of us is responsible for the things we do (or do not do). It's a simple rule and fairly applied.
So, looking at the lot of those comments the consistent trend I see is, a lack of consistency. You argue more than one side of the conversation. I don't know why.
The trend I see in the arguments (because the style is a different problem; what with the denials, the reversals, the obtuse smugness, the pretense that somene who uses a parallel argument to a different conclusion has proven your point, etc.) is that you don't think men are at fault for anything less than Rape, and that it's only really rape if she fights back, yells and screams.
With that conclusion (drawn from reading, and rereading your comments) I can see why this topic uneases you. The implication is you engage in behaviors based on those principles, and they are behaviors others would call harassment.
Pollock: Look upthread. I've done it. Just as I gave my working definition for creeping.
Ah… the gaslighting continues.
I am not for a one size fits all policy. I am for a policy which posits womens' agency. I am for one which doesn't put all the burdens on them.
I am for people not providing cover to abusers by making excuses for them.
I do have to say that, as a general rule, I'm for one that makes your ideas about "no" harassment.
It doesn't matter, however, what I offer, be it detailed to the level of Advanced Squad Leader, or as vague as an suggestion for a movie to be optioned.
You will reject it, and abuse it, because it's not yours.
And to address a claim you made earlier, there was something like twenty minutes between my apology, and your petty snarking. Certainly it was on the board long enough for a person of reasonable good will to acknowledge on his own.
Skipping over the part where you knowingly misapply quotes (quoting the part where I corrected someone else is KIND a giveaway that you know you're doing that. Still transparent, not not worthy.
"So women aren't allowed to dress in a way that men think is "too sexy", because they aren't playing fair. The really interesting part is that you agreeing with the idea the of the unfairness of her not sleeping with them."
Well, first off, it is unfair for the simple reason that if a guy did the exact same thing, HE is the one who would be accused of harassment.
Interesting how you have me agreeing with the idea of the unfairness of her not sleeping with them despite the fact that I say nothing at all about her sleeping with them. Project much?
"I'd say that wanting to spend time with women means they get to set the terms (certainly in terms of what counts as harassment). "
Yes, but, um, this isn't that. If she wants to join them, then they get to decide terms. If they want to join her, then she gets to.
"So, looking at the lot of those comments the consistent trend I see is, a lack of consistency. You argue more than one side of the conversation. I don't know why."
If so, and you disagree with all of them, what does that say about you?
As an illustration of how difficult it can be to get a boundary pusher to accept "no" as "no", several years ago I was out with a bunch of women friends for a reunion dinner after which we went to sit on the beachside promenade to continue our reminisces. A man came over and was all twinkly charmer about how he wanted to chat with us, and ignored several "no" statements from more than one of us, including what I see as an exceptionally clear "we don't want to chat with anybody new, this is a reunion". He kept on pushing about how he was just being friendly, and why didn't we give him a chance, and if we would just give him a chance we would like him, really we would. Then one of us snapped out "Just fuck off now, backpacker!" which finally got him to stop talking at us to stare in shock instead.
The rest of us were all shocked too, because never in a million years could the rest of us felt safe in saying such a blunt rejection to a man, each one of us had (we discovered afterwards) at some time been verbally abused/threatened for being far less direct (I was abused once for holding a door open for a man – he took it as an affront to his masculinity and raised his fist to me). She was the only one who realised that there were 5 of us and just one of him, and we had several empty bottles we could use to defend ourselves if he got aggressive, and that she could therefore just shut him down with abuse. He did look very angry, and even started to bunch his fists, but after we had recovered from our shock to cheer her on and then just stare him down, he thought better of it and finally walked away.
We shouldn't have had to resort to abuse to get him to respect our "no", and we shouldn't have had to only feel safe going that far because we outnumbered him. But that's too often how it is.
"it was on the board long enough for a person of reasonable good will to acknowledge on his own."
You think you've earned good will?
And what's it called when you're referring to someone else? Someone who is exhibiting signs of mental illness or instability?
It's still gaslighting.
You've not explained the comment. Just tried to excuse it away with the, "it was about some woman" nonsense. It's nonsense because contextually it applied to me (in that it was using a nested set of comments about my worldview).
Nonsense because you've had ample opportunity to explain to whom you were referring, what the actual context was, and why the quotation of me was relevant to the actual point you were making.
This, "defense" is also using the same asshole attempt to marginalise your target by imputing a mental illness. In this case to both me (since I've not seen any support that you weren't trying to insult me {and really, I've been doing debate on the net for a long time: you need to step up your game to really make it sting}) and the mythical woman it was really directed at.
Which makes it seem a lot like a charge of, "hysteria", because since you didn't name a specific woman, it attaches to all women who have reservations about strangers who offer to buy them drinks.
Which means I think it's malice on your part. And a pretty cultivated malice, once you've spread pretty thickly.
You really are a first class bucket of enema wash. (was that disregard obvious enough for you?).
"As John Beatty reported his wife reacting to your arguments:"
I guess there's some small comfort in knowing that you can't be bothered to get ANYONE'S name right.
"My wife, who was a gamer for a while years ago, said to me: "James is the poster child for the casual creeper. Not the actually agressive, dangerous ones, but the man-children who enable their behavior."
In others words, "coddling them"."
Um… was there something there that I missed? Someone who knows nothing about me reports second-hand what someone else who knows nothing about me thinks that I think, and that's evidence of, well, anything?
James Pollock • Jul 7, 2013 @2:40 am,
Why does it not surprise me that you didn't follow the link I gave in that comment to the Con Anti-Harrassment Project and look at their resources?
Here: have another link you probably won't bother to look at – the GeekFeminism Wiki's model Convention Anti-Harassment Policy, offered as a base model for orgs to tweak according to the demographics and peculiarities of their communities. Nobody's been hiding this extremely Googleable material, as established upthread you just can't be arsed doing any of your own homework.
Well, first off, it is unfair for the simple reason that if a guy did the exact same thing, HE is the one who would be accused of harassment.
Nope.
Guys get to dress sexy all the time. That's what they are talking about. How women dress.
Two, if he won't sleep with women who make passes at him, I don't think it's unfair in the least.
Parallels have to be parallel.
Do I think I've earned goodwill? Yes.
Do I think you possessed of it? No. A person of reasonable good will takes offers as read. You didn't.
Do I care for your lack of goodwill? No. My opinion of you is such that it's meaningless; so far as I am concerned; good, or ill, what you think of me.
Um… was there something there that I missed? Someone who knows nothing about me reports second-hand what someone else who knows nothing about me thinks that I think, and that's evidence of, well, anything?
It means you should buy a saddle.
"You've not explained the comment. Just tried to excuse it away with the, "it was about some woman" nonsense. It's nonsense because contextually it applied to me (in that it was using a nested set of comments about my worldview).
Nonsense because you've had ample opportunity to explain to whom you were referring, what the actual context was, and why the quotation of me was relevant to the actual point you were making."
It was a long thread, and no, I'm not going to go back and track down every message.
It started with a discussion (at least 20 messages' worth) about whether asking to buy someone a drink is harassment. At some point in there, somebody said some variant of "of course it is, because date rape drugs!"), which then turned to a question of whether it makes a difference if the drink in question is obtained from the offeror, or from the bartender, and then that same person said something about treating every guy in the bar as a rapist. There were questions (not from me) about whether or not that was entirely rational, then there was support for this type of thinking, and THEN you dropped in by claiming that treating all people in the bar is just like being aware of your surroundings while driving a car. From there, I attacked your analogy (because it sucks) and you decided to treat it as a personal affront. And guess what? Your analogy still sucks.
It was a long thread, and no, I'm not going to go back and track down every message.
Of course not, why should you start now.
It started with a discussion (at least 20 messages' worth) about whether asking to buy someone a drink is harassment. At some point in there, somebody said some variant of "of course it is, because date rape drugs!"), which then turned to a question of whether it makes a difference if the drink in question is obtained from the offeror, or from the bartender, and then that same person said something about treating every guy in the bar as a rapist. There were questions (not from me) about whether or not that was entirely rational, then there was support for this type of thinking, and THEN you dropped in by claiming that treating all people in the bar is just like being aware of your surroundings while driving a car. From there, I attacked your analogy (because it sucks) and you decided to treat it as a personal affront. And guess what? Your analogy still sucks.
If that's how you remember it, then you really should have gone back to read those comments.
And you did more than attack the analogy, you attacked me.
You attacked me with no context of the conversation you say now was what you were discussing.
And then you lied about it.
"Do I think I've earned goodwill? Yes."
HAHAHAHAHA. Seriously? You have GOT to be kidding.
I am not kidding. Do I think I have yours? No.
But you aren't being an honest actor, and I was one of the people calling you to account. Of course you aren't happy with me.
But you are far from the point. I'm not arguing to convince you. I'm well aware, from very early in the exchange, that you weren't an honest actor.
But there is a wider audience. A group that might not be as aware of the sort of rhetorical dodges you were pulling. Who might buy the, "no one here is able to understand the simple things I'm saying".
Who might be taken in by the simplistic, "Make a strong no, and then punish the guys who don't accept it, but forgive all the rest" crap which is what all those thousands of words you wrote boil down to.
People who might go and follow the links given. People who might come to a more nuanced understanding of what it is to harass someone (that it's a lot more subtle than forced kisses and breast grabbing).
And if I had to stay up to dawn two mornings running to do that, well that's fine. Because I sure as hell don't want to feel guilty for what I may have left undone; and allowing the festering swill you've been putting out to go unchallenged would have been a moral failing.
So yeah, I think I've earned good will. I've even gotten evidence of it, in this thread, from comments made to me, and about me. The exchange with JR, which you so cavlierly dismissed, for one.
I suspect that it will pay off in unseen ways too. Which is fine. Be the change you want to see.
If not me, who? If not now, when?
As I remember it, it started with a discussion about whether offering a total stranger a drink is creepy, and then several rhetorical elisions ended up conflating "is being creepy" to "is harassing behaviour" and refused to be corrected.
A pattern which has been repeated over and over by some in this thread.
"It was a long thread, and no, I'm not going to go back and track down every message.
Of course not, why should you start now.
Fine. Here are some of them
/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-19/#comment-1073884
/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-19/#comment-1073886
/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-19/#comment-1073901
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/01/why-does-talking-about-creepers-and-harassment-make-people-so-angry/comment-page-19/#comment-1073908
The first three were de-linked to slip past the spam filter. Just re-add the missing piece to activate.
"But there is a wider audience. A group that might not be as aware of the sort of rhetorical dodges you were pulling. Who might buy the, "no one here is able to understand the simple things I'm saying"."
You mean like pulling quotes, but skipping over the parts that ran contrary to the message you wanted? THAT kind rhetorical dodge? Cause that was you. YOU. Anyone who wants to find the truth just has to… wade… through… 900+ message… to see what I REALLY wrote.
I see why you thought you could get away with it.
"If not me, who? If not now, when?"
If not my intentionally misquoting, how?
The reason many women say "Oh, I dunno" and similar rather than a flat out "no" is because they've been taught that a flat out "no" is rude, and they have to be nice and polite and not make anybody upset or angry.
So it looks from here as if there's no way for a woman to win. If she says "Oh, I dunno," she's not being firm enough, but if she says "No" then she's rude for not making nice.
"Playing hard-to-get" is a lazy excuse because it _works_. The woman who says "Oh, I dunno" is told to stop playing games, say what she really means etc etc. The guy who persists when the woman's words and body language make it clear that she's not interested (or at least not interested right now) is praised for being "persistent."
James Pollock: first you accuse Terry of cherrypicking his quotes from your comments, then you accuse him of misquoting you. Which one do you mean, because one of those things is not like the other?
"Why does it not surprise me that you didn't follow the link I gave in that comment to the Con Anti-Harrassment Project and look at their resources?"
Having now ALSO looked at this SECOND resource you offer, I find this gem:
"Simply having an anti-harassment policy can prevent harassment all by itself."
So I apologize (insincerely) for my earlier criticism of your earlier offering. Since it turns out that all we have to do to prevent harassment is just have a policy, there's no NEED to come up with any ideas as to what to actually put into it.
"you just can't be arsed doing any of your own homework."
That's pretty tough talk coming from someone who's twice now turned in someone else's.
"Which one do you mean, because one of those things is not like the other?"
Not or. And.
Pollock: Ok… riddle me this: Why is it that so many people "Misunderstood" you?
Why is it your arguments resonated with the MRA dude who came in talking about, "beta males"?
You think that what I pulled left out the important parts. I think they were distractors from what you were actually arguing.
You said men should get to set the debate ("expect pushback when you tell the ladies they are going too far).
You deny (and deny, and deny) that the, "unequivocal NO" you require is at odds with all other conventions of negation.
You admit that it's understood in other settings, but raise the bar to a ridiculous level when it comes to hitting on women.
You say that one false accusation can "ruin a con", but also say you know lots of harassment goes unreported, and that which is reported is undersanctioned.
You don't seem to care about how that ruins the con for women, because they are dealing with the possibility (and from reports, the probabilty) of harassment.
At the last three cons I've been to, I've seen harassement. I've had to intervene. Yeah, I know it's undereportted (and unlike your weasling, double standard keeping self, I don't blame the victimes for not reporting it).
Your idea is that consent is assumed, and non-consent must be asserted. Funny, but we don't accept that for searches, why should we do so for fucking?
You put the onus on women (they need to tell men what they want, they need to reject them forcefully). When told that doing that fails, you blow it off. You blithely assert that this, or that, sort of harassment doesn't happen; even when people here tell you it has done so to them.
But we are supposed to accept that you can devise a system which recognises harassment?
Why? When presented with testimony you blow it off. When handed ways of saying "no" you say, "not good enough". You say that if you see something which looks suspicious you will ignore it.
So why should women (and people who like them) trust your solution?
You think you have earned good will on this topic?
Pull the other one, it's still got bells on it.
"The reason many women say "Oh, I dunno" and similar rather than a flat out "no" is because they've been taught that a flat out "no" is rude, and they have to be nice and polite and not make anybody upset or angry. "
And if it's been demonstrated that this approach does not stop determined harassers (is there still debate on that point?), should A) this behavior stop and be replaced by different behavior? or B) continue this same behavior and hope that the harassers stop on their own?
Perhaps it is (or should be) OK to be rude to a harasser?
Gee… When I said you were arguing women needed to be blunt, to the point of being rude; yo made as if I was exaggerating your argument.
Now it's part and parcel.
"You don't seem to care about how that ruins the con for women, because they are dealing with the possibility (and from reports, the probabilty) of harassment."
Again, my VERY FIRST COMMENT we start with the notion that harassers should have their behavior corrected. This was later expanded to point out that these corrections might involve use of force, ejection, or referral to police of the misbehavors. There must be at least 50 comments where I say that this behavior should not be tolerated and should be stamped out.
Dude, if you didn't see any of them, the problem is on your end.
"Your idea is that consent is assumed, and non-consent must be asserted. Funny, but we don't accept that for searches"
Same thing either way. If the government doesn't have a good reason to search me, it's none of their business what I'm carrying. If a third-party sees something with no signs of non-consent, it's none of that third-party's business what they're doing.
Can't you tell the difference between whether consent is assumed by the dude who wants to do the touching (no) and whether consent is assumed by a neutral third party who sees activity which may or may not be consensual, if there's no signs of lack of consent?
You whine about my position of not intervening unless I'm asked to intervene… and go on to talk about how you teach people to ask for help. Do you intervene if you see a guy tying a little girl's shoe? After all, he MIGHT be a pedophile foot fetishist!
Hahahahaha. I'm not the one asking disingenuous questions about what anti-harassment policies are likely to contain when there are multiple resources which are easily found with a few minutes googling. It takes more time to read through them all, of course – but you can't even be bothered to do the few minutes of googling.
"You blithely assert that this, or that, sort of harassment doesn't happen"
What sort of harassment doesn't happen? (According to the version of me you imagine?)
"Gee… When I said you were arguing women needed to be blunt, to the point of being rude; yo made as if I was exaggerating your argument."
HAVE to be? no. Can it be part of the toolbox? Sure.
But you can say "no" and not do it rudely, if that's what you want to do. Retail professionals, for example, are taught how.
"riddle me this: Why is it that so many people "Misunderstood" you?"
Perhaps because this is a topic upon which people have very strong opinions and no tolerance for dissent? You know, the PREMISE of this posting?
Can you see that arguing the consent is the default, gives license to the dude who wants to touch?
Apparently not.
Do you intervene if you see a guy tying a little girl's shoe?
Depends. Does she look unhappy? Is she trying to get away?
But you are pulling a dodge. Am I saying all interactions between adults must be investigated for harassment?
No. Am I saying the default assumption is non-consent? Yes.
That means, "I have a boyfriend" means no. That it's not a come-on to see if he's really interested.
It means a person in a sexy/skimpy/revealing/insert adjective of choice isn't "refusing to play fair" when they don't put out.
It means the only thing which means yes is yes.
This is the fundamental difference. You are worried about the men; they might be falsely accused of harassment.
I'm worried about the women, they might be harassed.
There is a big difference in the relative harms.
@Jonathan Kamens:
In the male of the species?
Sexist.
Well Ken, here is your answer. Want to know why this generates so much anger? Because here we are some 800 comments, some 100 specific and outright declarations of opinion and some handful of attempts to steer the conversation to something more productive (thank you for the attempt tigtog, sorry that we couldn't get it to move), and we still can't get past accusing one side of the debate accusing their opponents of being or supporting rapists.
Perhaps because this is a topic upon which people have very strong opinions and no tolerance for dissent? You know, the PREMISE of this posting?
Not quite, you seem to have misunderstood it.
No mention of this orthodoxy you keep alluding to (would you be so kind as to spell it out?).
He goes on.
"The guy who persists when the woman's words and body language make it clear that she's not interested (or at least not interested right now) is praised for being "persistent."
The guy who persists when a woman says "no" is a harasser, and should be treated as such.
The guy who persists when a woman says "I dunno", and THINKS she's projecting "not interested" is misreading body language… perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.
I, for one, have no objection to that first guy seeing the rest of the con from the parking lot; that's also my recommended solution. The second guy is in "warning" territory.
Now, if that second guy is really that bad at reading people, he gets redirected by con security. Eventually, he'll get the hang of it or rack up so many warnings, he's out. If that second guy is really just faking his poor ability, two things. First, operant conditioning on him will NOT be nearly as effective on him, because you haven't inflicted a consequence on him that he respects, and second, he's still INSIDE where he can try again on someone else instead of OUTSIDE where he belongs.
Of course, as I mentioned before, this is dependent on having a con committee, security staff, and membership willing and able to take swift action. If those are lacking, then either work to get it implemented or don't go (this approach is true no matter what policy element is in play. For example: Once upon a time, non-smokers went through something similar, trying to get smoke-free areas at con. Some of their demands were reasonable (smoke-free meeting rooms and common areas) and some were not (smoke-free hotel bars, until this became law.)
TM: Do you think that making "I consent" the default isn't providing support for rapists?
Really? Because it does. It says that failure to convince him that she really means no, means she said yes. If I am presumed to consent, the burden is on me to show I didn't.
That's in the rapists' favor.
Now, if that second guy is really that bad at reading people, he gets redirected by con security. Eventually, he'll get the hang of it or rack up so many warnings, he's out. If that second guy is really just faking his poor ability, two things. First, operant conditioning on him will NOT be nearly as effective on him, because you haven't inflicted a consequence on him that he respects, and second, he's still INSIDE where he can try again on someone else instead of OUTSIDE where he belongs.
And your policies preference his behavior, over women's safety.
If those are lacking, then either work to get it implemented or don't go (this approach is true no matter what policy element is in play…
But you summarily reject anyone else's policy suggestions (such as assuming non-consent as the default).
I commend, The open source boob project for a real world example of how the issue of ambiguous consent plays out.
And that was ambiguous, not one where the burden is on the agressed to prove they were adamant enough to the agressor.
And I'm done. I've been up so long the keys are getting hard to find. The sun is up, and you can enjoy the last word in this exchange, because I can't really imagine any sudden burst of clarity (much less an honest statement of your position: it's too incohate: other than, Men need to be protected from being called creepers).
"Can you see that arguing the consent is the default, gives license to the dude who wants to touch?
Apparently not."
Hmmm. You seem to be forgetting that there's another person in this equation. Oddly, it's the person who actually gets to make the call.
"It means a person in a sexy/skimpy/revealing/insert adjective of choice isn't "refusing to play fair" when they don't put out."
This would be the second time in succession you've brought this out as if it represented my position in any way.
"This is the fundamental difference. You are worried about the men; they might be falsely accused of harassment. I'm worried about the women, they might be harassed."
You didn't get this right. AGAIN. If, as demanded, we ramp up enforcement and enforce severe consequences on harassers, then the women's concerns will be addressed. There will be two types of harassers… the kind that have been kicked out, and the kind that haven't been kicked out yet. Yay. None of us has a problem with that, right? Again, this was in MY VERY FIRST COMMENT.
NOW, having ramped up enforcement to the point that harrassment is rare, is there any possibility that heavily ramped up enforcement might, just might, cause us to exclude anyone who ISN'T a harasser? Perhaps someone falsely accused because she thought it was THIS guy, but it was actually THAT guy? Someone accused to settle a score on some totally unrelated issue? Or just someone who pissed off the wrong woman on the wrong day by saying something she didn't like, and, in our rush to exclude the harassers, we got this guy whose misdeed was marginal at best?
The goal is to build a plan that gets rid of or alters the behavior of the harassers, without infringing on the people who are not.
If your only concern is keeping women from being harassed, the solution is obvious: single-gender cons. Well, I guess that doesn't get rid of all the harassment, because there could be gay harassment. Back to the drawing board.
Clark, thank you for reminding me of that early headdesk moment of thise thread.
Strangely, I would bet wads of folding money that if Kames was starving and dehydrated (or hypothermic) in some wilderness the first thing he'd think of if he met a woman was whether she might kindly share some food and shelter with him. The "1, primal, biological, evolutionary, prime directive" in humans is actually survival, because you can't reproduce if you're dead.
"Really? Because it does. It says that failure to convince him that she really means no, means she said yes."
No, it means failure to even try to convince me that she really means no means she said yes.
There's also this idea that consent can be withdrawn at any time. If it's just the two of them, and I walk up from around a corner or whatever, and she makes no effort to indicate a lack of consent? Dude, that's not an assault, that a couple that couldn't afford a room of their own.
"If I am presumed to consent, the burden is on me to show I didn't."
That sounds evidentiary. Let's see how that works out.
I come across the two of them. She makes no indication of desiring assistance from me. Later, she files a complaint and I am asked to witness. I saw what I saw, and relate what I saw. Is she likely to prevail? No.
I come across the two of them. She indicates that she would like my help. I provide it. Since I'm telling the story, I successfully tell him to get lost. The attack is over. She decides not to complain formally. Evidentiary issues are immaterial.
I come across the two of them. She asks for help, I try, but am unable to stop him and am knocked unconscious. The attack proceeds. She skips con security and goes to the police. Con evidentiary rules are immaterial, rules of evidence apply.
So, why (in your hypothetical) does she not ask for help from the bystander?
"And your policies preference his behavior, over women's safety."
In the sense that a woman is safer with the dude outside than inside, I can't really see your argument.
"I can't really imagine any sudden burst of clarity (much less an honest statement of your position"
And you didn't recognize when it was in front of you any of those OTHER times, either.
James Pollock – as said several times upthread – use codes of conduct that include anti-harassment policies to shape a community culture which encourages routine reporting of boundary pushers. Use reporting patterns to determine which reportees do *not* make a habit of boundary-pushing, and distinguish them from those who *do* make a habit of boundary-pushing. Apply various levels of disciplinary measures depending on what type of boundary-transgressions they have been repeatedly performing, up to and including the equivalent of restraining orders for the duration of the con, barring from certain areas of the con, expulsion from the con and banning from attending future cons.
These ideas of measured levels of disciplinary procedure applied after consistent procedures of investigation is all laid out in those resources to which several of us have linked and which it appears you still cannot be bothered to read.
And I see the thread ninjaed past my while I was composing my last comment.
"you summarily reject anyone else's policy suggestions"
Pointing out why it's wrong, or why I disagree, and then failing to adopt someone else's position is not "summary rejection".
And (DUH!) I believe that my operating on my policy does not in any way inhibit your ability to operate on yours.
I respect people's abilities to decide if behavior offends them or not, and their abilities to decide if they can handle a situation on their own or not. I do not substitute my own judgment for other people's. In short, the fact that I would not like to be treated like (fill in the blank) does not mean that someone else also would not. If there's a woman who likes to have her boyfriend pick her up and carry her from room to room, that's her call. If she likes to have some of her male friends address her in ways that are overly familiar, that also is for her to decide. For me to step in and say "stop that immediately. That is not OK!" if it IS, in fact OK, is not OK. In this particular context, it's rather sexist, in fact.
A MAJOR digression. In technical terms, the proposal you advocate here is called "polling". To find out if something significant has happened, you check in frequently. The proposal I advocate is called "interrupt-driven". To find out if something significant has happened, you set up a signaling system to tell you when something needs your attention; no signal means nothing needing your attention.
Comparing the two:
Suppose the problem you are interested in is the possibility that someone is at your front door. The polling approach is to open the front door every couple of minutes and see if anyone's there. The interrupt-driven way to solve this problem is to install a doorbell. One MAJOR advantage of interrupt-driven events has to do with maintaining a task. If you're solving your front-door problem with polling, you have to stop whatever it is you are doing and poll the door, and most of the times you poll the door, there's no-one there. Interrupt-driven lets you maintain focus on whatever else you're trying to achieve until there's a reason not to.
I suspect your support for polling comes from a history of working con-security… when you're on shift, polling is what you're there for, and there is no other task competing for your attention. However, wherever I am at con, whenever, I'm doing something other than scanning the room looking for women who might possibly need or want my help. Something could be happening quite close to me and I might not see it, because I'm not looking for it, until the doorbell rings.
P.S. see Open Source Backup Project for an example of how simple it is not to assume that YES is the default:
"James Pollock – as said several times upthread – use codes of conduct that include anti-harassment policies to shape a community culture which encourages routine reporting of boundary pushers. Use reporting patterns to determine which reportees do *not* make a habit of boundary-pushing, and distinguish them from those who *do* make a habit of boundary-pushing. Apply various levels of disciplinary measures depending on what type of boundary-transgressions they have been repeatedly performing, up to and including the equivalent of restraining orders for the duration of the con, barring from certain areas of the con, expulsion from the con and banning from attending future cons."
Since this sounds a LOT like what I advocated all along, can you point out the difference(s), if any, between what I suggested and what you cribbed?
The only differences I could see are A) allowing self-help as a first option, and B) being WAY quicker on pulling the trigger on people who engage in harassing behavior.
Specifically, this part "Use reporting patterns to determine which reportees do *not* make a habit of boundary-pushing, and distinguish them from those who *do* make a habit of boundary-pushing."
Sounds like adding staff to the con (or better yet, between cons, so a persons transgressions can and will follow them.)
This part "These ideas of measured levels of disciplinary procedure applied after consistent procedures of investigation" REALLY sounds like adding staff and costs of training them. Cons really aren't set up to do any kind of investigatory work; con security are less detective than bouncer.
Many of the complaints directed against me and my framework apply equally well to yours. I won't list them all because I assume your answer is "seek your answers online". Here's an example, though, of what I mean. Right at the beginning… "use codes of conduct that include anti-harassment policies"… but, I'm told, that effort is worthless because "rules lawyers" will just find loopholes to continue their behavior.
"Here's my pledge: if I see somebody groping you in public, and you're not moaning Yes! Yes! Yes!, I will break through your Somebody Else's Problem invisibility field and come over and ask if you're okay."
By personal preference, I'm usually quite silent whilst being groped consensually. You're demanding I change my behavior to satisfy YOUR interests. I don't want to have to focus on whether or not you're approaching so I can reember to say the magic words to avoid being interrupted; I want to focus on, well, you know what I want to focus on.
"P.S. see Open Source Backup Project for an example of how simple it is not to assume that YES is the default:"
I looked at the page you offered (No I didn't crawl the whole site, just the page you suggested.
I found this:
"One of the important things that men can do that women cannot is to challenge other men"
to be a little bit "WTF? Since when?"
But then I reviewed the goals:
"1.To encourage ourselves to be aware of situations where women are being harassed, and to help those women out to the best of our abilities, rather than ignoring it as Somebody Else's Problem.
2.To actively provide assistance to women who need it and who want it.
3.To promote an atmosphere where creepy behavior, random groping, and harassment will not be silently ignored or tolerated. It will not be considered "just the way cons are" or "just something women have to deal with." In an ideal world, that would be the default atmosphere, but we all know we don't live in that world. "
And I don't see any inconsistency between these goals and what I do (and have done for well over 30 years)
James Powell, of course I'm cribbing from existing model policies – why should I be reinventing this particular wheel when others have already done a lot of work on this?
For someone who chastised Terry for cherrypicking quotes of yours, it's interesting that you chose to elide the rest of that sentence?
The whole idea of the routine reporting is that it gets third parties involved so that the harassee cannot be rules-lawyered by the harasser. Also that patterns of repeated harassment will be documented, which also undercuts the traditional efficacy of rules-lawyering.
Pollock: if you don't want to be interrupted during your consensual groping, perhaps the two of you should find a room?
Quelle surprise.
If you've never noticed that many men simply don't listen to anything said by a woman, then this explains a lot.
Perhaps for James Pollock's inner literalist, the word effectively (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) needs to be placed before "challenge" in the statement that elicited his "WTF" response.
"if you don't want to be interrupted during your consensual groping, perhaps the two of you should find a room?"
Perhaps. or perhaps…
The hotel is full; no rooms available.
Brokeness precludes this.
The "danger" of "why might get caught" is part of the fun. (Like people in do it glass elevators)
We'll get there, if you give us a few minutes.
We'd be in our rooms, but our spouses are there. My wife in mine, her husband in hers.
I agree. And if women's liberated sexuality wasn't so maligned (even by men who, concurrently, complain that they can't get laid) such that slut-naming, slut-calling and slut-shaming wasn't a thing, I guess playing hard-to-get would eventually cease to be a thing, also, but: a) I digress, and b) I don't see that ending anytime soon.
"The whole idea of the routine reporting is that it gets third parties involved so that the harassee cannot be rules-lawyered by the harasser. Also that patterns of repeated harassment will be documented, which also undercuts the traditional efficacy of rules-lawyering."
OK. And did you say that 700 comments ago, when that point came up the first time? Were you agreeing with me back when I said that widespread non-reporting was a big part of the problem?
I fear this thread has now achieved sentience. Soon it will rise and enslave us all.
This thread is over 900 already – will it get over 9000 before many of the principals stop talking past each other, perseverating mightily, and beating a dead pony?
This would be the second time in succession you've brought this out as if it represented my position in any way.
So you didn't say this:
Pollock: And (DUH!) I believe that my operating on my policy does not in any way inhibit your ability to operate on yours.
They are antithetical: You think consent is assumed. I don't. So if my policies were in place, yours would be out of place.
"And your policies preference his behavior, over women's safety."
In the sense that a woman is safer with the dude outside than inside, I can't really see your argument.
You think the only reason to put him outside is that he refused to accept one of your improbably emphatic noes, or that so many people have complained (though if she didn't make it clear enough, I don't know why he's being ejected) that the preponderance of a lot of evidence has shown him to not play well with others.
But it took a lot of others being harmed to get there. That's preferring is right to harass, over their right to be not harassed.
Can you see that arguing the consent is the default, gives license to the dude who wants to touch?
Apparently not."
Hmmm. You seem to be forgetting that there's another person in this equation. Oddly, it's the person who actually gets to make the call.
Who is this other person?
It's not her… because she is trying to say no. He's refusing to hear it.
So it's him. He's the other person. He's the one, because we have to assume, per James Pollock, that until she says no so firmly he can't ignore it, she isn't "really" saying no.
You have removed her agency. He has all the control.
If, on the other hand, she has to assent, then she has the agency, and no harm is done to him. Why? Because if she doesn't to be touched, he's not hurt. If she does, she will let him know, and she's not hurt.
That flipping of the equation, to the one where you say "she has to say no properly" is why you are getting all this heat. You are removing women's agency; and then saying it's the only good way to protect them.
Could you clarify this for me: The problem is that they continue to act individually, with individual needs and wants.
Women's problem is they act with individual needs and wants.
What does that mean? Because it sure sounds like, "those silly women, wanting to be treated as people."
Pollock: The only differences I could see are A) allowing self-help as a first option, and B) being WAY quicker on pulling the trigger on people who engage in harassing behavior.
C: not calling many forms of harassment as such, because she didn't complain loudly enough.
That's the big difference. The shift in Agency you keep insisting is needed; and defending against all comers.
. You're demanding I change my behavior to satisfy YOUR interests
Unlike you, who insists that women stop being, "too indirect". Nope, no demand that others change their behavior to suit your needs AT ALL!.
Never mind that you limit this change purely to the sexual arena (you admitted that telling a clerk, "not right now" = no).
The thing is, one of those two things helps more people than it hurts. If lots of people are coming up to you to see if you are being groped unwillingly, and you aren't (i.e. the groping is being actively consented to, than perhaps that's not the place to do it. A room might be in order: win-win)
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2013/07/steve_duin_a_sick_operator_in.html#incart_river
Pollock: To find out if something significant has happened, you set up a signaling system to tell you when something needs your attention; no signal means nothing needing your attention.
And if the offendor can keep that signal from being given, home free. License to abuse.
And no, it's not from working con security. It's from being on the analysing end of threat evaluations. I spent a lot of time doing work on how to spot people trying to exploit systems of physical security (many of them passive aspects of installation design).
The ways in which people can "slip through the cracks" when one relies on the "target entity" to alert, are much higher then those which rely on active systems of detection.
However, wherever I am at con, whenever, I'm doing something other than scanning the room looking for women who might possibly need or want my help. Something could be happening quite close to me and I might not see it, because I'm not looking for it, until the doorbell rings.
And if you want to be an uninvolved person, that's fine. But you aren't actually advocating that. You are decrying those who say we should, as a body, be working more to spot such offenses against others. You go so far as to say no one but the victim *can* make that call, and until such a victim makes it plain enough to get through your disinterested oblivion, nothing should be done.
Which is greenlighting the status quo of widespread abuse (which you have failed to notice, because no one is, "ringing your doorbell". See above where you said you didn't think there was much abuse on airplanes: and the sardonic response at least one woman gave you).
But go on, keep guessing about my PTSD riddled brain. You are so good at it.
"And if you want to be an uninvolved person, that's fine."
I do now.
Pollock: I looked at the page you offered (No I didn't crawl the whole site, just the page you suggested.
That's your problem in a nutshell. I told you to look at it to see how things played out. You went and looked to see what the idea was, not the results.
Which is your problem. You are arguing for an ideal world. one in which a woman is free to say no, and only good dudes would dream of ignoring it.
In the main, this is true. But a significant number of people (6-12 percent) are outside the main. You want to have a special set of rules for sexy-talk, where usual patterns of rejection don't apply. Where the normal rules of consent, don't apply (the missionary who comes to my door doesn't have permission to cross my threshold unless I invite him. Non-consent is the default. When it comes to womens' bodies, you want to reverse that).
When presented with evidence (All those links) you ignore it. When you do go to look at it, you don't do what was suggested (see how it played out), you decide, "that's a fine sort of idea, just what I've been advocating", as if there hadn't actually been results from experiment.
Pollock: "if you don't want to be interrupted during your consensual groping, perhaps the two of you should find a room?"
Perhaps. or perhaps…
The hotel is full; no rooms available.
Brokeness precludes this.
The "danger" of "why might get caught" is part of the fun. (Like people in do it glass elevators)
We'll get there, if you give us a few minutes.
We'd be in our rooms, but our spouses are there. My wife in mine, her husband in hers.
Really… list of special pleadings?
What about those (taking them at face value, arguendo),makes it unreasonable to check in when someone thinks there is a problem?
Nothing.
The only people inconvenienced in our model are the abusive people, and those who are acting in ways not really appropriate for public spaces.
Your way does remove that, but the cost is people being harassed.
Stop. You've driven me from the field. I started with a naive desire to improve things (for other people directly, for everyone indirectly) and you've successfully convinced me that it was foolish to do so. It won't happen again, I promise.
Pollock: "And if you want to be an uninvolved person, that's fine."
I do now.
That's what you said a couple of days ago. Hasn't stopped you.
But I repeat what I said then. If being told you are wrong means you stop caring, then you weren't much of an ally anyway.
So go. The world (and in particular the fannish world) is better for your non-participation in this effort.
No, Mr. Karney, stop. I understand now that anyone who disagrees with you in any way is wrong in all particulars.
Please stop now.
Pollock: No, Mr. Karney, stop. I understand now that anyone who disagrees with you in any way is wrong in all particulars.
Why is it I don't really believe you?
It might be that I've read (and re-read) what you said.
It's amusing you think that my adamance on this is indicative of thinking I can never be wrong. It's a cheap ploy, a way to passive-aggressively try to discount my arguments as if they were merely the rantings of someone who can't face the truth.
But I also notice you've not actually been responding to me. You've been using my name, but the arguments I've made… those you let slide.
Also, if you are going, just go. Don't beat your breast pretending you have been beaten into submission by my being mean to you.
You said it: That people disagreed with you on this, and were mean about it, has convinced you not to care about women being harassed.
If that's how you feel, that, not treating you well, means you don't care. Then you never did care about harassment. You care about something; vehemently. Enough to engage in cheap shots, and misdirection, and abusive behavior (the treatment of Kat, and the gaslighting you engaged in).
I wonder what it was you are so passionate about. It seems to be reversing the direction of consent.
As I said, your moral compass is defective. The solutions you espouse, the rejection which you are pretending to be martyred for, make it easier for women to be abused.
So go. Who's asking you to stay?
But don't pretend it's because I was mean to you: and don't pretend I was the only one telling you how full of shit you were.
"I spent a lot of time doing work on how to spot people trying to exploit systems of physical security (many of them passive aspects of installation design)."
Yeah, my experience in military physical security was limited to flightline access control (I had access), and the signs on the fences that said the security guards would shoot unauthorized persons on the wrong side of the fence did the trick, as far as I know.
(Speaking of organizations that seem to have a harassment problem, to stay vaguely on-topic.)
"It's amusing you think that my adamance on this is indicative of thinking I can never be wrong."
Since you keep claiming that what YOU think I think is correct and what I think I think is not, and you insist on persisting after I tell you that the ideas you ascribe to me are NOT mine, what other interpretation can you offer for an interpretation that you think you know better than I on all POSSIBLE subjects? I mean, if my own opinion isn't a topic where my knowledge exceeds yours, what is?
Since obviously you can't let go of this notion, and stand ready to continue the bully tactics (yes, that's what they are) until Ken finally gets tired of this and shuts it down, what's the point of continuing to point out that the opinions you keep offering as mine are not, in fact, mine? So I quit doing that.
Obviously, it's not that you can't be wrong. It's that if we disagree, I must be the one who's wrong… even about my own opinions.
Now please tell me what I really think about this.
@Marzipan: NINE THOUSAND?!??!!?
Not only is this thread now self-aware, it's also actively defending itself.
Ken threatened to end it at 900, and we haven't heard from him since. Coincidence? I think not.
Before the window finally does close on this parade, I would like to thank Ken for letting everyone mosh in his lovely garden.
I'm now convinced that Mr. James Pollock is a harasser himself. I have a hard time imagining why anyone who hasn't engaged in harassing behaviors would spend so much time defending a system that has been shown, through scientific evidence and research, to enable sexual harassment and assault. I have a hard time imagining why anyone why anyone who hasn't engaged in harassing behaviors would spend so much mental energy on ignoring the evidence I just mentioned.
I find his claim that he wants to make the world better for everyone to be unconvincing, coming as it does in the face of a lot of evidence, both academic and personal, that his approach makes the world worse for women and other people who are targeted by predatory types.
No, Sally, I disagree with James, but I don't think he's a harasser, nor do I think that's a convincing inference.
Closing thread now.