Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

While I really don't think that you personally are being that deliberately cold (in the sense of completely dispassionate) about it, I do honestly feel like your posts are contributing to that general argument.

I appreciate your honesty. I find the view point troubling but I'm grappling with it. In the end I could be wrong and I'll keep an open mind as I've said.

FWIW: Here is my perspective. Emotional issues do not lend to critical thinking and skepticism. We are all capable of being blinded by our biases and emotions. IMO, there should not be items that are off limits to discuss so long as the truth is the paramount goal.

Quote:

This is an issue of what's really under discussion here, and the motivation (real or especially apparent) behind that commitment. Within the context of this discussion, as you describe it (the context of a potentially dramatic drop in women attending TAM because or how questions of harassment at TAM are or will be dealt with), how helpful is it to do this sort of thing? And, more importantly, how is that commitment coming off to other people? Does what other people think about this line of discussion line up with what you want them to take away from the discussion after reading this thread?

In my honest opinion, we are very poorly served by falsehoods and slander. I have not, in the least tried to be reductive or to down play behavior which I would think would be a legitimate claim against me had I done so. I suspect you and I might be at an impasse on this particular issue. I can live with that so long as people do not lie about me or mischaracterize my intent or my actions. If some see an honest attempt at finding the truth as contrary to the goals of TAM then I respectfully disagree. I would not want to be part of an organization that sets aside the truth for other ends. Further, I reject that there is a good side or that I'm on some side. I'm on the side of decency and honesty. That's it.

Quote:

What, also, is the goal of pressing for details and specifics on harassment reports, and then dissecting and discussing those details to see if you think they really count as harassment? Obviously incidents like that were reported as harassment, and the other incidents were at least considered to be harassment (whether or not they were "reported") for a reason (unless you think it's part of an orchestrated campaign of deliberately false reports as part of the radfem agenda or something).

A.) As far as I can tell I'm not doing that. B.) If the purpose is to get to the truth and all participants are honest about the facts then I cannot find reason to fault that. The truth should be the goal. C.) If people are attempting to belittle, downplay, obfuscate, excuse behavior, etc., then that's a worthy point to criticize.

Quote:

What, in short, is the actual problem being discussed here, the thing that actually needs to be solved in all this mess, and how does this little side jaunt into discussing DRBUZZO actually contribute to reaching that solution?

I did not bring up DRBUZZO. Others have as evidence of something. I'm fine with that. I only ask that the correct facts about those events be relayed. That's all. If you think others were wrong to bring up DRBUZZO then I suggest you address them. So long as it is a point of discussion I will seek to keep the facts straight.

I honestly don't think the abuse of the truth is in anyone's best interest. That's my point here. It's easy to justify clouding of the facts when one believes that their cause is just. I do not subscribe to that point of view.

[RandFan]

ANTPogo:

Originally Posted by RandFan

I appreciate your honesty. I find the view point troubling but I'm grappling with it. In the end I could be wrong and I'll keep an open mind as I've said.

I can live with that so long as people do not lie about me or mischaracterize my intent or my actions.

I want to apologize for a momentary typo that was particularly damning on my part. I had written "I appreciate your dishonesty". I suppose one could accuse me of a Freudian slip but I assure you that is not the case. Also, I do not believe that you have mischarctherized my intent and actions and you certainly have not lied about me. I want that to be clear.

[sgtbaker]

This is such a complicated multitude of issues that it's hard to keep track of where the focus actually is. I get questioning the attacks on DJ. In order to say that DJ did not appropriately address the situation, we do need to prove that incidents were, in fact, reported to the staff and mishandled. We have one incident, where a person complained about a harassing individual[I am referring to camera guy, but the harassment not related to the camera], and according to the individual's own words, he was never contacted regarding the situation. If the staff decided without investigating, that there was no reason to investigate further, or at least say to the individual, "hey, your behavior is putting people off," Than I would say, yes, we have evidence that at least time, the situation was mishandled. I find the camera incident a bit unnerving but that's only for potential, not a factual offense. We can completely drop the camera incident because, we have what we need. A situation where harassment occurred but there was no follow up, regarding the aggressor. Either that or the aggressor is lying which would make his version even more suspect.

A while back, there was a request for actual instances of harassment at JREF. This was in response to the objection to the claim, that it doesn't occur. When stories were shared, they were picked apart, looking for inconsistancies and then told how handling the situation could have changed the outcome. They didn't share the stories to learn how to handle the situation. The discussion wasn't about how women can prevent harassment and/or assault, the discussion was asking if it happens at all. Rather than take the anecdotes into consideration,possibly just back off and admit that it really happens some (not all) responded by saying how they could have stopped it from happening, or how it wouldn't have happened to them. That's great but that's also a deflection from the topic. The question was, does it happen. The answer was yes it does and here is one experience.

I am all about personal safety and prevention. I have nothing against boundaries or keeping your wits about you. However, assigning levels of liability to the woman for leaning in when their assailant was intentionally speaking low, to reel them in, in no way changes the fact that it did happen, at TAM. Telling a woman that she has to be conscious of her dirty pillows, or that she has to refrain from perfectly normal social cues because there are predators out there that exploit those types of situations, well, that kind of puts a woman in a no win situation. She wants to be treated with equal consideration. When she is not treated with equal consideration (unless guys were getting their neck licked or tongues shoved in their mouths, too), she complains, but by complaining she is accused of expecting special consideration.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Hang on, A.) one more time, what did I say that wasn't true? B.) Your argument is "heads I win tails you lose." C.) I'm NOT DEFENDING DRBUZZO just trying to find the truth.

It's certainly possible that DRBUZZO is being selfserving. However, saying that something is creepy ISN'T proof that he finds that it is not creepy. That is begging the question.

I'm simply trying to find the truth of what was said in that thread. Nothing more.

I can find no other reason to explain what you are doing. I'm strictly trying to find the truth. I have been painfully honest here. I've asked questions that others refuse to answer. I've tried to answer them myself by finding reasons why the claim by bookitty might be correct. You have no basis to accuse me of circling wagons to defend DRBUZZO.

Please, seriously, engage with me in good faith. If I've done something inappropriate I will gladly own it and apologize. Tell me what I've said that was untrue?

There's more info available about DR B than just that thread so if you want to find truth you'll need to cast a wider net.

Once again you are personalizing the argument by accusing me of lacking good faith. That's inappropriate.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let me thank you for responding. I appreciate it. Let me also state that I'm a bit upset and so I need to try and calm down and not read into peoples words thing they do not intend. I only ask that others do the same.

That said, let me ask two questions.

• Regarding the highlighted text. Is that what you feel I'm doing?
• Given the real concerns raised about harassment and the decline of attendance by women, do you think any and all attempts to correct the record in favor of someone like DRBUZZO are inappropriate? IOW: If someone says something that is materially untrue about what DRBUZZO did or say in any context do you feel it is untoward to try and correct that?
• Is a commitment to finding the truth, in the context of this discussion, wrong?

Let me state a couple of points about my real feelings on this subject..

• DR. A was a friend of mine, someone I liked and therefore I had reason to be in denial of RemieV's claim. However, I found her and her story credible and I fully accept her claims and I have come to her defense.
• I accept that DRBUZZO has acted very inappropriately and I do not excuse or condone that behavior.
• I have not at any time tried to downplay rude behavior.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the comfort and safety of women.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the declining attendance of women at TAM.

I ask a fair hearing of my arguments. That's all. I resent being accused of excusing bad behavior simply for trying to get at the truth.

See the hilited?

To me the implication is that what has been posted here by other posters is not the truth. IOW you're calling all the women who posted their experiences liars.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Why must you? I get hooked into these links and lose hours. I found this peculiar, though:




But then he claims he went right to the source [Mr. X] for the real story:



So, when you go right to the source, you still get conflicting details... imagine that.

But in another place, Mr X. admits he was spoken to by security:

Originally Posted by Mr X

They did not remove the camera, actually. They came up to me and asked what I was doing. I said I was using a camera and they told me they had a policy of not allowing cameras on the casino floor. I protested that I had seen others with cameras. They basically said something akin to (and I'm prarphrasing) "Yes, we turn a blind eye to it all the time, but it's kind of obvious when you have that thing, so please put it away.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Edit: Incase it came off that the snark was directed at you, it wasn't.

No problem.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

But in another place, Mr X. admits he was spoken to by security:



No problem.

That was the first quote I put in that post.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by tsig

See the hilited?

To me the implication is that what has been posted here by other posters is not the truth. IOW you're calling all the women who posted their experiences liars.

No. And I really, really resent that. That is a complete non-sequitur.

• It's possible that every experience is the absolute truth, that I accept it as the absolute truth, but I am skeptical of claims about what has been said of others like DRBUZZO.
• It's possible that every experience is the truth but some aspects have been misremembered and/or misreported (I know of NO such incident).

I have NOT called into question any experience. Please stop. Seriously, please stop. I've done nothing to warrant your slander. I don't know if you are a decent and honest person or not but please, stop doing that.

• If I lie about what others have said, please point it out.
• If I engage in obfuscation or excusing of behavior, please point it out.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

I like you and your posts, RandFan, so I really hope this doesn't come off as any kind of attack on you, because it is emphatically not intended as one.

Quote:

But I feel rather strongly, and I've said so a couple of times in this very thread, that this kind of "we need documented names, places, times, full details, and whether or not it was officially and properly reported up the proper chain of command for every incident before we decide what to do" attitude is unhelpful at best and counterproductive at worst when it comes to addressing the actual issue at hand.

Because, again, if women are rethinking their attendance TAM because concerns about harassment there and how said harassment will be dealt with (however unreasonable and unfounded you personally think those concerns are), that attitude is not likely to make them change their minds and suddenly say "you know what, I guess I'll go to TAM after all".

It's certainly not making me change my mind about what I said in my very first post in this thread.

Hey AntPogo, I really love your post because it is asking questions and stating biases instead of just attacking others.

I scrolled through and saw that others had commented on the same part that drew my attention.

This is the part that causes me great concern in this thread and why I have repeatedly referred to sexual harassment as the 'sacred cow' Because it is a blind spot.

A blind spot into how it feels to be a man and constantly subjected to the bias.

That is

As a rape survivor I well understand the need to believed. But I also understand the need to step away from the emotional and "get to the facts"

As a rape survivor I understand the difficulty in putting women in the place of recalling details.

As an objective observer I do understand the need for accurate objective assessment. And this is very important to me personally (which I admit creates bias in my own understanding) that it is important for sexual assault victims to be BELIEVED.

Lies and gossip only contribute to the misunderstanding that women exaggerate their experiences, which is why I personally think documentation in an objective way is so important.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Let me thank you for responding. I appreciate it. Let me also state that I'm a bit upset and so I need to try and calm down and not read into peoples words thing they do not intend. I only ask that others do the same.

That said, let me ask two questions.

• Regarding the highlighted text. Is that what you feel I'm doing?
• Given the real concerns raised about harassment and the decline of attendance by women, do you think any and all attempts to correct the record in favor of someone like DRBUZZO are inappropriate? IOW: If someone says something that is materially untrue about what DRBUZZO did or say in any context do you feel it is untoward to try and correct that?
• Is a commitment to finding the truth, in the context of this discussion, wrong?

Let me state a couple of points about my real feelings on this subject..

• DR. A was a friend of mine, someone I liked and therefore I had reason to be in denial of RemieV's claim. However, I found her and her story credible and I fully accept her claims and I have come to her defense.
• I accept that DRBUZZO has acted very inappropriately and I do not excuse or condone that behavior.
• I have not at any time tried to downplay rude behavior.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the comfort and safety of women.
• I have many times expressed concerns about the declining attendance of women at TAM.

I ask a fair hearing of my arguments. That's all. I resent being accused of excusing bad behavior simply for trying to get at the truth.

Originally Posted by tsig

See the hilited?

To me the implication is that what has been posted here by other posters is not the truth. IOW you're calling all the women who posted their experiences liars.

Honestly, out of everything I wrote this is what was taken away. How can we have a rational discussion if this is the level of discourse?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That was the first quote I put in that post.

D'oh!

[gentlehorse]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Originally Posted by tsig

See the hilited?

To me the implication is that what has been posted here by other posters is not the truth. IOW you're calling all the women who posted their experiences liars.

...Seriously, please stop. I've done nothing to warrant your slander. I don't know if you are a decent and honest person or not but please, stop doing that.

FWIW, RandFan, I think tsig is way out in left field on this one. You've been respectful and reasonable throught the course of this thread.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by truethat

This is the part that causes me great concern in this thread and why I have repeatedly referred to sexual harassment as the 'sacred cow' Because it is a blind spot.

There should be no sacred cows in skepticism.

[truethat]

This is what bothers me. In gender issues there is a sacred cow.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by gentlehorse

FWIW, RandFan, I think tsig is way out in left field on this one. You've been respectful and reasonable throught the course of this thread.

Thanks. I really, really appreciate that. I need to take a break as I'm boiling over at the moment. I can be a bit too emotional. I don't mind being criticized in general. I'm human. It's the false claims and refusal to listen to reason that really push my buttons.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by tsig

See the hilited?

To me the implication is that what has been posted here by other posters is not the truth. IOW you're calling all the women who posted their experiences liars.

That is inventing an implication out of whole cloth. There is nothing in 1) wanting to fine the truth, and 2) having a disagreement with others in that discussion about finding the truth that equals the implication of calling the others liars. Nothing at all.

Discussion will be impossible if you assume the worst of the other, and inventing that implication is a great example of assuming the worst of RandFan.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No. And I really, really resent that. That is a complete non-sequitur.

• It's possible that every experience is the absolute truth, that I accept it as the absolute truth, but I am skeptical of claims about what has been said of others like DRBUZZO.
• It's possible that every experience is the truth but some aspects have been misremembered and/or misreported (I know of NO such incident).

I have NOT called into question any experience. Please stop. Seriously, please stop. I've done nothing to warrant your slander. I don't know if you are a decent and honest person or not but please, stop doing that.

• If I lie about what others have said, please point it out.
• If I engage in obfuscation or excusing of behavior, please point it out.

So when you say "It's possible that every experience is the truth but some aspects have been misremembered and/or misreported" you are not calling into question the experience?

Maybe you're saying the experience happened but the account of it is misremembered and/or misreported?

This is the third time you've personally insulted me, maybe you need to rethink your motivations. I did not slander you. I gave my interpretation of your post and in return you question my honesty.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by RandFan

ANTPogo:

I want to apologize for a momentary typo that was particularly damning on my part. I had written "I appreciate your dishonesty". I suppose one could accuse me of a Freudian slip but I assure you that is not the case. Also, I do not believe that you have mischarctherized my intent and actions and you certainly have not lied about me. I want that to be clear.

I didn't even read your original post until after you'd already fixed it, so no worries.

Originally Posted by truethat

Hey AntPogo, I really love your post because it is asking questions and stating biases instead of just attacking others.

I scrolled through and saw that others had commented on the same part that drew my attention.

I feel kind of conflicted every time I post in this thread, because as much as I usually try to hide it behind a sort of dispassionate pseudo-academic style of writing in my posts here at JREF (like my reply to RandFan above), I freely admit that I have my own strong biases about things. Sometimes those biases lead me to post things I really probably shouldn't, simply because I get so worked up and emotionally invested in the position I'm arguing.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by truethat

This is the part that causes me great concern in this thread and why I have repeatedly referred to sexual harassment as the 'sacred cow' Because it is a blind spot.

Really? 55 pages of discussion is an indication that sexual harassment is exempt from criticism?

Quote:

A blind spot into how it feels to be a man and constantly subjected to the bias.

Which part is the blind spot to how men feel; Complaints about harassment from a small population that happen to be men or complaints that the complaints are not adequately addressed by those in charge?

Quote:

That is

As a rape survivor I well understand the need to believed. But I also understand the need to step away from the emotional and "get to the facts"

As a rape survivor I understand the difficulty in putting women in the place of recalling details.

As an objective observer I do understand the need for accurate objective assessment. And this is very important to me personally (which I admit creates bias in my own understanding) that it is important for sexual assault victims to be BELIEVED.

Lies and gossip only contribute to the misunderstanding that women exaggerate their experiences, which is why I personally think documentation in an objective way is so important.

I think your experience can bring a lot to this discussion; especially empathy. Do you think your sexual assault reflects on the character of all men (assuming you were assaulted by a man, if not, change it to women)? Likely not. Is there any chance that the victims of sexual harassment and assault in some cases are also capable of making that same distinction? Is there any way that we can stop acting like a complaint about one individual (different individuals by different complaints) is being cast on all men? I don't think you would appreciate it, if you told your story and in return, you were accused of treating all men like sex crazed pervs.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by tsig

So when you say "It's possible that every experience is the truth but some aspects have been misremembered and/or misreported" you are not calling into question the experience?

First off I haven't questioned any such experience. Second, questioning an aspect isn't calling into question whether or not the event happened.

Quote:

This is the third time you've personally insulted me...

WTH?

Quote:

I did not slander you.

1. You said in response to adman that I was circling the wagon to defned DRBUZZO. That was flat out untrue.
2. You said that I agreed (or "seemed" to agree) that it was okay to excuse the bad behavior of others if they acknowledged creepy behavior. That was flat out untrue.

I've not at all tried to defend DRBUZZO. There is nothing remotely true about me agreeing with creepy behavior. I was ONLY correcting the record. There is nothing untoward about that. It is wrong to malign someone who does. If you want to say you misundersood then I can move on but I have not done anything wrong here.

Originally Posted by tsig

There's more info available about DR B than just that ...

I've conceded that DRBUZZO has engaged in bad behavior. That has nothing to do with whether or not what Bookitty said was true. To attack me simply for seeking the truth is a red herring.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Really? 55 pages of discussion is an indication that sexual harassment is exempt from criticism?

I think there have been some substantive examples where the worst has been assumed of people, myself included. I have stated up front that I have accepted the claims of RemeiV and others. I have voiced concerns about the comfort and safety of women in general and TAM in specific. I have tried really hard to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Yet simply by correcting the records on a number of occasions I've been accused of defending inappropriate behavior. Now, I will admit that I've only been accused of that by a single person so I'll grant that perhaps the conclusion is unfair. But I have seen some troubling responses on both sides of this issue. Clearly the emotions and biases have caused consternation in this thread.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I think there have been some substantive examples where the worst has been assumed of people, myself included. I have stated up front that I have accepted the claims of RemeiV and others. I have voiced concerns about the comfort and safety of women in general and TAM in specific. I have tried really hard to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Yet simply by correcting the records on a number of occasions I've been accused of defending inappropriate behavior. Now, I will admit that I've only been accused of that by a single person so I'll grant that perhaps the conclusion is unfair. But I have seen some troubling responses on both sides of this issue. Clearly the emotions and biases have caused consternation in this thread.

Agreed, not all responses, on either side have been perfect. That in no way is indicative that this topic is above scrutiny.

I just wanted to add that I did not see it either. I read through both pages of that thread, twice and did not ever see him favorably speak about upskirt shots. By the time I figured out what that whole disagreement was about, it was actually Gentlehorse's post that made me read back, he/she had already validated you. I felt silly, jumping in and saying, "me too!" Though, perhaps I should have.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Meanwhile, there's a conversation going on between Mr Monopod and one of the people who reported him.

Are you sure you can lump a non-binary in with the term people? Perhaps Hexasexual would be a better term.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by monoman

Are you sure you can lump a non-binary in with the term people? Perhaps Hexasexual would be a better term.

Take this light heartedly, please but a Hexasexual what; rabbit; frog; bird? A hexasexual person is still a person, the plural of that being people.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Were you contacted at any TAM about having a camera on a stick/pole?

FWIW, the way I read that question, before you pointed it out, was "were you contacted by anyone from the JREF at TAM".

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by monoman

FWIW, the way I read that question, before you pointed it out, was "were you contacted by anyone from the JREF at TAM".

It's possible but the question asked, "anyone," but question 8 asked if he was contacted by DJ or anyone from JREF.

[monoman]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Take this light heartedly, please but a Hexasexual what; rabbit; frog; bird? A hexasexual person is still a person, the plural of that being people.

I was just warning him*, lest he* cause offence!

(if you prefer 'them'/ 'they' then profuse apologies)

[monoman]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

It's possible but the question asked, "anyone," but question 8 asked if he was contacted by DJ or anyone from JREF.

Yes, that rings a bell. I'll have to go back and have a look at the questions.

[meg]

This post is not addressed to any particular poster, nor am I responding to any particular post. This is just something I have been thinking a lot about, and I'm trying to put into words.

This is not the first thread ever about this problem, nor, I am sure, will it be the last.

Some typical patterns have shown up in this thread that have shown up in the others.

Some women talk about things that have occured that are examples of sexual harassment and/or assault.

• Some people try to focus on what the women did wrong.
• Some people try to focus on what women should do in the future to avoid this sort of thing.
• Some people try to focus on how the women must have misunderstood. He was just flirting. You should be flattered! etc
• Some people try to focus on how there is no concrete evidence for these examples.
• Some people try to focus on how the women that talk about such things are just feminists, attention whores, drama queens, hypersensitive, etc
• Some people try to focus on how few examples these are, so statistics-wise there is no real problem.
• Some people try to focus on how the women shouldn't talk about such things because it gives the organization a bad rap.
• Some people try to focus on how, if a woman quotes what someone else has said, they are gossiping or rumourmongering.
• Some people try to focus on how, since these things cannot be proven, the women must be gossiping, rumourmongering, or outright lying.
• After a while the women get sick of it and either just leave or blow their stack and yell at people.
• Some people then focus on how irrational or emotional they are for doing so.

This is an old pattern and it's a common pattern. And it is the reason that historically sexual harassment and sexual assault are underreported. A lot of women just don't want to risk having to go through the ordeal.

What gives me hope and keeps me going here is that it seems to me that compared to some past threads,

• More people are focusing on what we can do to stop harassers from harassing.
• More people are focusing on what JREF can do to address this problem.

This gives me hope, because focusing on these two areas is zeroing in on the only things that can actually change. Focusing on past events does little to positively affect the future. It just ends up looking like the same old, same old thing. Blaming the victim, denying the events happened, dismissing things as unimportant, shooting the messenger.


Here is the real problem, plain and simple.
JREF has an image problem. JREF has a problem in that they are *perceived* as having sexual harassment occuring at their events, and them being less that stellar at responding to reports. Any proposed solution needs to address that we are not only talking about sexual harassment, but public perception of sexual harassment and how it is handled. Now please don't take my use of the words "image" or "perceived" to indicate that I do not believe the narratives of sexual harassment and/or assault that have been presented here. I do believe these women. Every one of them. I see no reason not to.

I'm sure someone here will reply, "But surely you realize that as skeptics it is our nature, nay, it is our duty to analyze evidence and search for truth!" And my response is, sometimes you really don't have to. These women are not talking about something unbelieveable or extraordinary, so we really don't need any extraordinary evidence. Sexual harassment is common in society, so I see no reason to be be particularly skeptical that it occurs here, too.

And actually, skeptics are not unbiased. You are fooling yourself if you think that skeptics treat every idea with the same level of fact finding and truth searching. If these same women were to describe memorable acts of human kindness or generosity they had experienced at TAM, would there be this same level of questioning of the sequence of events, or doubt that they were describing things accurately? Would people be quick to assume that these women had done or said something that brought these kind acts on themselves? Would people who repeated these stories of kindness be accused of irresponsible gossiping? Would anyone be so concerned if TAMs started getting a reputation for being an event where people were nice? Would anyone here feel a need to repeatedly explain to people that statistcally, TAM people are no more nice than the average population? Would anyone here feel concern that the acts of a few "kind apples" were making all the rest of us look good? When asked why TAM registrations were up by such and such percentage this year, would DJ Grothe express concern that well meaning bloggers were inadvertantly leading people to a false impression that niceness was rampant in our community?

Nah. Probably not.

We pick and choose what we are skeptical about. We accept without much question those things that fit with our personal worldview (we are nice), and we attempt to dismiss or negate those ideas that don't fit our worldview or make us uncomfortable (sexual harassment happens in our community).

I think, as advocates of critical thinking and skepticism, we need to be aware that we might do this, and we, moreso than other people even, should be willing to do some self reflection and self examination and ask ourselves individually and collectively just where our own worldview and opinions about sexual harassment come from. Is your own opinion (I'm using the general you here, not speaking to any one poster in particular) about sexual harassment based purely on evidence and facts? If not, where did it come from? How much of your own opinion on the matter is based on your own experience? And how much is based on research, books, statistics, or other information, from sources other than yourself? Are those sources reliable? How recently have you looked at the data? How similar is your opinion to that of your parents, grandparents, teachers, or other childhood influences? How similar is your opinion to your own peer group? Are these other people that influence you basing their opinions on evidence and facts?

Talking about sexism, and its more extreme variants, sexual harassment and sexual assault is hard. And changing sexist thoughts, patterns and perceptions is difficult, because it does require stripping out some preconceived notions and rethinking how we thought the world worked. In my opinion, it's a lot like arguing with the religious. You really can't argue someone out of their beliefs. The best you can do is plant an idea, and it's up to them to work through the mental upheavals that result.

In our collective skeptical community mind, that seed has been planted. And we are now in the midst of the upheaval. So which way do you want to go?

[shuttlt]

I wonder if it would be helpful to separate off the more general "how to improve the TAM experience for women (and less common gender denominations)" topic from the camera guy stuff? If somebody tells me they don't feel comfortable at TAM, I'm happy to take their word for it and consider it a problem that needs fixing. If stories start flying around about real people for whom there may be real consequences, I feel uncomfortable rushing to judgment in either direction.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by meg

We pick and choose what we are skeptical about. We accept without much question those things that fit with our personal worldview (we are nice), and we attempt to dismiss or negate those ideas that don't fit our worldview or make us uncomfortable (sexual harassment happens in our community).

For sure, we pick and we choose, but that is a pretty depressing view of scepticism - that it seeks to dismiss and negate.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by meg

I'm sure someone here will reply, "But surely you realize that as skeptics it is our nature, nay, it is our duty to analyze evidence and search for truth!" And my response is, sometimes you really don't have to.

The truth is a worthy goal in and of itself. Yes, you really do have to. There can be no presumption in skepticism. There should only be a commitment to objectivity and the truth. Failure to be diligent in the search of the truth can result in unintended consequences. The Duke Lacrosse case being a prime example.

I understand your frustration I really do. But I can't endorse this.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I wonder if it would be helpful to separate off the more general "how to improve the TAM experience for women (and less common gender denominations)" topic from the camera guy stuff? If somebody tells me they don't feel comfortable at TAM, I'm happy to take their word for it and consider it a problem that needs fixing. If stories start flying around about real people for whom there may be real consequences, I feel uncomfortable rushing to judgment in either direction.

Agreed.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I wonder if it would be helpful to separate off the more general "how to improve the TAM experience for women (and less common gender denominations)" topic from the camera guy stuff? If somebody tells me they don't feel comfortable at TAM, I'm happy to take their word for it and consider it a problem that needs fixing. If stories start flying around about real people for whom there may be real consequences, I feel uncomfortable rushing to judgment in either direction.

I think this falls into a circle, of sorts. I don't think you are setting a trap, but if the issue is how to improve the experience, first questions have to be asked about what makes the experience unpleasant. If it's unwanted sexual advances or persistant harassment, it becomes a question of how often it happens; enough to constitute rules addressing the complaint? How do we get past that without anecdotes? If someone says, "I was harassed," it can't be left at that. The questions come about what constitutes harassment. Once the anecdotes come in, they are subject to scrutiny; are you sure you didn't misunderstand something? Did you lead the person on? Maybe you weren't clear enough.

If we must view everything skeptically, how do you get around that?

[elipse]

Originally Posted by truethat

The first question I already answered. If you can't figure it out then I'd suggest dropping it because I'm going to start doing the repeating thing again. (Hint, the fact that I've made suggestions about improving the policy ought to be a giant HINT that I am not against improving the policy. But all will be in vain if people don't report) (I've only said that about 59 times in this thread so your question really is disturbing to me.)

Okay, so I take it that you DON'T have a problem updating and making the TAM policy more specific.

Since that's the only thing being proposed, what in the world are you railing against?

Quote:

I have a major problem with DJ Grothe being treated poorly because of melodramatic lies perpetuated by RW and others of her ilk who took, what he stated, (which I have posted here 3 times but you apparently didn't read) and tried to twist it into a nasty attack on Ashley.

Who said anything about treating him poorly? Perhaps your definition of "treated poorly" is different than mine. I have to guess, because you chose not to actually answer my question, that you DO have a problem with DJ Grothe not being in charge of the sexual harassment policy at TAM.

Fair enough. I happen to disagree. I am all for looking forward. I do not CARE, at this point, whether DJ Grothe is an angel among men, being maligned by the daughters of satan himself, or whether he is a secret woman hating sadist who has finally been caught out by the forces of Truth and Justice. At this point, no matter who is more at fault, the JREF and DJ Grothe in particular have a pr problem. I only care about fixing that problem. Removing DJ Grothe from any involvement with the sexual harassment policy-- updating or enforcing-- would probably help. Unless that is the only thing that DJ Grothe does for the JFEF, taking that one item off of his to-do list does not constitute "treating him poorly", at least not in my book.

Quote:

Your third question also shows that you haven't read my posts carefully. Announcing to men that they need to be on their good behavior is a slap in their face to me. It's collectively blaming them for the behavior of a few creeps. I've also explained this point over and over and over again. So this will be my last reply.

I don't understand how updating the policy "announces to men that they need to be on their good behavior", any more than any other set of rules for any place you're in. Do you bristle at the signs saying "quiet" in the library, because you know to be quiet already?

Also, you said you were in favour of updating and specifying the TAM policy. Since that is the only thing I'm asking about, I can't figure out how you are both in favour of the update and upset because it is a "slap in the face" to men.

Quote:

The need to treat men like criminals or children or sex crazed frat boys is repulsive to me.

I don't understand how having an updated and more specified set of rules and guidelines treats men like criminals, children, or frat boys. Again, when you see signs that say "quiet" in the library, do you think the librarians are treating you like a rude loudmouth? What if they updated them, to include the line "cell phones are to be turned off while in the library"? Would you be angry because the library is assuming you'll let you phone ring on and on?


...Or perhaps you think that a sexual harassment policy uses language like "men, you are pigs. Don't be pigs"? I don't believe there is any chance that a professionally drafted and edited document, one that probably needs to be approved by a lawyer, will use language that would "treat men like criminals." In fact, I doubt very much "men" would be mentioned at all. "Patrons" or "attendees" is far more likely.

So I come to my final question:

What, exactly, is your beef? There is a perceived problem. Some people think that problem is more problematic than others, but at this point, it makes no difference to the solution.

A solution which is good even if there is NO problem.

Even if there wasn't any drop in attendance, even if there wasn't any of this kerfuffle, updating and specifying the policy at TAM would STILL be a good thing to do.

And you're on board with it. (At least, from what I can tell.) But you're still focusing on bits and pieces from the past and arguing over whether this or that thing was this bad or only half this bad, and why? Why?

What is the point?

[elipse]

Originally Posted by varwoche

For crying out loud, the thread is enough of a mess without your entirely off-topic, personal meanderings.

You are the second person to mention it, and I accept your rebuke.

I try my best not to be a jerk on the internet, but sometimes I fail.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think this falls into a circle, of sorts. I don't think you are setting a trap, but if the issue is how to improve the experience, first questions have to be asked about what makes the experience unpleasant. If it's unwanted sexual advances or persistant harassment, it becomes a question of how often it happens; enough to constitute rules addressing the complaint? How do we get past that without anecdotes? If someone says, "I was harassed," it can't be left at that. The questions come about what constitutes harassment. Once the anecdotes come in, they are subject to scrutiny; are you sure you didn't misunderstand something? Did you lead the person on? Maybe you weren't clear enough.

If we must view everything skeptically, how do you get around that?

I think in this I am in agreement with some of the feminist posters here. I don't believe we need to know the truth of what happened with the camera guy to have a discussion about what the harassment policy is/should be.

We are having two discussions at once and I don't think we are helping the cause of mutual understanding with this approach.

[elipse]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I think this falls into a circle, of sorts. I don't think you are setting a trap, but if the issue is how to improve the experience, first questions have to be asked about what makes the experience unpleasant. If it's unwanted sexual advances or persistant harassment, it becomes a question of how often it happens; enough to constitute rules addressing the complaint? How do we get past that without anecdotes? If someone says, "I was harassed," it can't be left at that. The questions come about what constitutes harassment. Once the anecdotes come in, they are subject to scrutiny;are you sure you didn't misunderstand something? Did you lead the person on? Maybe you weren't clear enough.

If we must view everything skeptically, how do you get around that?

Holy christ, I know you didn't mean to, but those three questions are pretty classic examples of how to manipulate a woman into withdrawing a sexual assaut/ sexual harassment/ rape complaint.

If I got mugged on the street I hope the cops wouldn't ask me leading questions like that. "Maybe you weren't clear enough that you prefer to keep your money."

...I think I might just have had an ephiphany about which "just asking critical questions" make people think of victim blaming:

When we hear about other crimes, we ask about the facts, not the motivations of the victim. I'd say that any fair question about this also needs to address WHAT happened, not the motivations of the victims. None of the three of your questions are focused on the facts of an incident.

An example: let's say two guys are arguing at a bar. One of them takes a swing at the other and blacks his eye. When the cops come, I can't imagine them saying things like "did you do something to make him hit you?" They don't care. Battery is battery, and even if the guy with the black eye told the other guy he'd been sleeping with his wife for 15 years, the guy who hit him is the one getting taken away for battery.

Anyway, that just occurred to me. I personally see no benefit to looking backward. As I said before, a specific sexual harassment policy is a good thing for TAM to have, even if there had been zero incidents of sexual harassment at TAM, ever.

However, if others feel that these things have to be addressed because we're all skeptics, and that's what we do, then perhaps that's one way to avoid the "victim blaming" label and keep everyone on an even keel. Only ask questions the cops would ask of a guy who got beat up in a bar...or threatened with a beating, for verbal abuse, I suppose. If it wouldn't be relevant (with some minor tweaking, of course) in that situation, maybe it doesn't really need to be asked to find out the relevant information in this one?

I dunno. I just don't see how arguing with such high tempers about things brings any more clarity. I am including myself in that, by the way. I was rude and that brought down any ability I might have had to add to the discussion.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks. I really, really appreciate that. I need to take a break as I'm boiling over at the moment. I can be a bit too emotional. I don't mind being criticized in general. I'm human. It's the false claims and refusal to listen to reason that really push my buttons.

fwiw, tsig's contributions here have been even more worthless than mine...

[blobru]

Though not quite as worthless as mine (nice try, though).