Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[truethat]

Well here's another thing, Lee didn't report it to DJ Grothe until the end of TAM so what was he supposed to do? The thing that annoyed me is that he didn't get back to them about it?

But follow up should include documentation and preventing that person from coming again in the future.

IMO people are more likely to behave better if they know that after TAM people can send in feedback that will be used to gauge who can come in the future. A pig that's going to do what he did to you should be permanently banned. And also that information should be sent to other skeptical events and organizers to help protect women.

If a TAM attendee is having immediate issues with a person at TAM they should use security at the venue.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by RemieV

No - the promotion is still in place, even this year. Skepchick issued several scholarships - I believe a dozen - this year.

19 was the last figure I heard.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by truethat

Well here's another thing, Lee didn't report it to DJ Grothe until the end of TAM so what was he supposed to do? The thing that annoyed me is that he didn't get back to them about it?

But follow up should include documentation and preventing that person from coming again in the future.

IMO people are more likely to behave better if they know that after TAM people can send in feedback that will be used to gauge who can come in the future. A pig that's going to do what he did to you should be permanently banned. And also that information should be sent to other skeptical events and organizers to help protect women.

If a TAM attendee is having immediate issues with a person at TAM they should use security at the venue.

Well, one thing he WASN'T supposed to do was claim that there had been zero reports.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I may have missed it, but is Ophellia still not coming?

She probably needs to see Master's & Johnson.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Well, one thing he WASN'T supposed to do was claim that there had been zero reports.

Here's the thing though, what in her report is sexual harassment?

Quote:

1 respondents to the survey did report a problem with an interaction with someone else that made them feel uncomfortable or unsafe (this was a difference question on the survey). 3 of them were men who did not elaborate on the interaction and 3 were from women who did not elaborate on the interaction. Another was a woman who reported a speaker was rude to her when she asked for a photo. Another was a woman who was made fun of for not being an atheist. Another was a woman was ridiculed for being a vegetarian. Another was a woman who reported no specific incident but claimed her enjoyment of the event was negatively affected by the “drama surrounding elevator gate” and “having to hear everyone talk about it.” Finally, one person did report feeling uncomfortable around an attendee, fearing future possible sexual harassment, and while we are concerned about such concerns, there was no complaint of any actual activity that had happened that the hotel or security or law enforcement or others could take action on. Importantly, every one of these 11 respondents nonetheless reported feeling welcome at TAM.

That sounds like what Lee described to me.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by truethat

Here's the thing though, what in her report is sexual harassment?




That sounds like what Lee described to me.

Can't be - because it was two reports, and it wasn't the survey. It was Lee and their friend. Two separate reports about the same thing.

[RemieV]

Additionally, therein lies the problem. If it IS Lee's experience that is being recounted there, and for some reason we've turned those two separate reports into a single one (which is disingenuous) we've run into an issue where everyone claims they could do nothing. Why is that? Why could they do nothing?

If it's that South Point won't throw people out on the JREF's say-so, then it sounds like the venue might be a problem - because telling someone over and over to leave so-and-so alone will result in nothing whatsoever. Again, the bulk of Lee and their friend's issue was not with the camera, but was with the fact that the individual had been repeatedly asked to leave them alone and wouldn't.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Kil

What they say is this:

That's not required by state or federal law. They are saying they will be proactive in policing their own conference by providing staff to report to. It's nonsense to say that reassuring conference attendees that the staff has their backs is a redundancy.

In fact reporting this to conference staff is what they shouldn't do. It should be reported to the security staff at the venue as they are the ones charged with dealing with these issues on venue property.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by RemieV

Additionally, therein lies the problem. If it IS Lee's experience that is being recounted there, and for some reason we've turned those two separate reports into a single one (which is disingenuous) we've run into an issue where everyone claims they could do nothing. Why is that? Why could they do nothing?

If it's that South Point won't throw people out on the JREF's say-so, then it sounds like the venue might be a problem - because telling someone over and over to leave so-and-so alone will result in nothing whatsoever. Again, the bulk of Lee and their friend's issue was not with the camera, but was with the fact that the individual had been repeatedly asked to leave them alone and wouldn't.

First off, security cannot just throw someone out on someone else's say so. That opens up the venue, and TAM, to law suits.

Second, that security did not remove the individual suggests there is more to the story than what we have heard thus far.

[RemieV]

Originally Posted by qayak

First off, security cannot just throw someone out on someone else's say so. That opens up the venue, and TAM, to law suits.

Second, that security did not remove the individual suggests there is more to the story than what we have heard thus far.

None of us has any idea if the JREF could broker a deal wherein attendees of TAM could be thrown out of the hotel proper on their say-so.

[truethat]

RemieV I think you are being a little insincere. When Lee reported Buzzo to security they immediately intervened. When DJ Grothe was told that a man was harassing people he immediately had him removed.

It's as if you aren't lining up what actually DID happen because you are focusing on what should have happened.

Evidence shows that When Ashley Miller was harassed DJ Grothe had the guy removed. It also shows that when Lee contacted security they investigated and told Buzzo he couldn't hold the camera that way.

What these people have been complaining about is not being treated victimly enough and JREF not condemning sexual harassment. But interpretation is everything. Lee's case "could" have been interpreted as Lee's own bias confusing an innocent act. (I personally do not think so) but we're here after how many freaking posts on page 66 after days of discussion and there is still not a clear picture of what went down.

Expecting the JREF staff to be able to make these kinds of decisions immediately at the event is frustrating. In your case there's no question Dr. A was wrong. In other cases it's interpretation and not something the staff can easily call in the moment.

Harassment, jerks, annoying people, even theft and fighting are things that security is there for. If they can be used then use them. Seems to me this is more about not being treated with enough respect as a victim.

And I can somewhat understand that position. But after a while I want to get down to the facts and solve the darn problem.

Call security. Use security. Document and report what happened.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Violence in general isn't funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

[Baloney]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Personally, I don't find anything that RW, Ophelia, or Ashley Miller has said as "man hating."

Specifically, Ashley Miller -- she pointed out that she reported harassment at TAM. I didn't see any follow-up "man-hating." In fact, I would say characterizing her as such is a pretty good example of dishonest characterization. Also, you probably don't read her blog, where basically she has mostly nice things to say about DJ and TAM: 11 Thoughts on TAMpocalypse 2012

[qayak]

Originally Posted by RemieV

None of us has any idea if the JREF could broker a deal wherein attendees of TAM could be thrown out of the hotel proper on their say-so.

Why would you want them to?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Belz...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

Never heard of them.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Belz...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Stooges

I don't find them all that funny, but I immediately thought of them, as you did so here...Tosh.O also seems to make a good living making people laugh by showing violence (in the form of internet videos).

[Michael Gray]

Originally Posted by truethat

No her name on this site I think was Rebecca. I'll dig up the old post.

I'm pretty sure that Watson returned under the moniker of 'radialtyre'

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by belz...

Originally Posted by avalonxq

Violence in general isn't funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_three_stooges

QED .

abc

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Michael Gray

I'm pretty sure that Watson returned under the moniker of 'radialtyre'

That was a sock puppet she had, from when sock puppets were not against the rules. Without going back and checking, I don't think she used that to post after the ban. My impression is that she is not the least bit bothered by not being able to post here, so the idea that she is holding this against DJ is rather silly.

[Kil]

Originally Posted by qayak

In fact reporting this to conference staff is what they shouldn't do. It should be reported to the security staff at the venue as they are the ones charged with dealing with these issues on venue property.

No. It's what they should do if it's at an official event held under the event banner. Staff can get security involved if needed. If harassment happens at the Del Mar, or someplace not part of the event, than yes. The person should go to hotel security. But why should a person have to leave the room of an event that they paid for to go find security if event staff is around? That's adding insult to injury. And why shouldn't the event staff be empowered to throw someone out of an event if they are behaving badly? If the staff needs to get security to do it, so be it.

We had, in our packets last year, a code of conduct that included a warning. Who is supposed to enforce the warning? If the JREF makes the rules, they should also be able to enforce their own rules.

But if I understand your earlier comment, con's shouldn't even have rules because the state has rules which makes the con's rules redundant. Of course, that's ridiculous. The state has laws against sexual harassment in the work place, but outside of the workplace, short of actual groping or worse, it's not against the law to be a jerk. Of course, if the person files for a restraining order and it's granted, problem solved. Yeah... That's the ticket! That'll work for a convention! :P

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I don't find them all that funny, but I immediately thought of them, as you did so here...Tosh.O also seems to make a good living making people laugh by showing violence (in the form of internet videos).

I don't find the Stooges funny, either. The point is, everything is funny in the right circumstances, so appealing to emotions like AvalonXQ and Truethat did is just smokescreen in a debate.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Kil

No. It's what they should do if it's at an official event held under the event banner. Staff can get security involved if needed. If harassment happens at the Del Mar, or someplace not part of the event, than yes. The person should go to hotel security. But why should a person have to leave the room of an event that they paid for to go find security if event staff is around? That's adding insult to injury. And why shouldn't the event staff be empowered to throw someone out of an event if they are behaving badly? If the staff needs to get security to do it, so be it.

We had, in our packets last year, a code of conduct that included a warning. Who is supposed to enforce the warning? If the JREF makes the rules, they should also be able to enforce their own rules.

But if I understand your earlier comment, con's shouldn't even have rules because the state has rules which makes the con's rules redundant. Of course, that's ridiculous. The state has laws against sexual harassment in the work place, but outside of the workplace, short of actual groping or worse, it's not against the law to be a jerk. Of course, if the person files for a restraining order and it's granted, problem solved. Yeah... That's the ticket! That'll work for a convention! :P

I can see going to the staff to ask them to call security. But frankly when security came for Buzzo they didn't think he was taking upskirt pix because he wasn't. There were no upskirt pix on his camera. The only concern they had is that you are not allowed to use cameras on a casino floor.

Going to the staff and having them call security is the way it should be done. Then documentation.

In some blatant cases of abuse it is easy to discern harassment. But not always. Putting JREF in the middle of making that call can create problems.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Baloney

Specifically, Ashley Miller -- she pointed out that she reported harassment at TAM. I didn't see any follow-up "man-hating." In fact, I would say characterizing her as such is a pretty good example of dishonest characterization. Also, you probably don't read her blog, where basically she has mostly nice things to say about DJ and TAM: 11 Thoughts on TAMpocalypse 2012

Shucks, she actually sounds quite reasonable and conciliatory. I certainly wouldn't characterize her as "man-hating" (or "radfem" for that matter), at least not based on what she says in the linked blog.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Shucks, she actually sounds quite reasonable and conciliatory. I certainly wouldn't characterize her as "man-hating" (or "radfem" for that matter), at least not based on what she says in the linked blog.

Total agreement. A very reasonable response to everything that has happened.

Basically the polar opposite of how I'd expect a man-hater and bully like Watson to respond.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Total agreement. A very reasonable response to everything that has happened.

Basically the polar opposite of how I'd expect a man-hater and bully like Watson to respond.

You must be talking about a different person from the rest of us.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

You must be talking about a different person from the rest of us.

No, I've been making this same assessment of her for many, many pages on this thread:

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yep. RW acted the bully, and turned the issue into one of feminist fundamentalism - the whole "if you disagree with me you are a misogynist or parroting misogyny" thing.

But let's not allow the fact that RW is a bully, a jerk, a misandrist, and a drama llama get in the way of the fact that her complaints about TAM are corroborated by others and appear to be quite valid.

[Kil]

Originally Posted by truethat

I can see going to the staff to ask them to call security. But frankly when security came for Buzzo they didn't think he was taking upskirt pix because he wasn't. There were no upskirt pix on his camera. The only concern they had is that you are not allowed to use cameras on a casino floor.

Perfection is not likely to be achieved.

Quote:

Going to the staff and having them call security is the way it should be done. Then documentation.

Right!

Quote:

In some blatant cases of abuse it is easy to discern harassment. But not always. Putting JREF in the middle of making that call can create problems.

Sure. But again, if they make the rules, there should be some procedure to implement the rules by staff, even if it's by way of alerting security. As you stated above, "Going to the staff and having them call security is the way it should be done. Then documentation."

[truethat]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Total agreement. A very reasonable response to everything that has happened.

Basically the polar opposite of how I'd expect a man-hater and bully like Watson to respond.

Yikes I lumped in Ashley Miller. I should not. I meant Rebecca Watson and her groupies.

Originally Posted by Kil

Perfection is not likely to be achieved.



Right!



Sure. But again, if they make the rules, there should be some procedure to implement the rules by staff, even if it's by way of alerting security. As you stated above, "Going to the staff and having them call security is the way it should be done. Then documentation."

Here's the thing though, is the problem great enough to warrant spending energy time and money on this issue?

Realistically it seems the answer is no. The incidents are so few that just contacting security or anyone there seems to be able to solve the problem.

So that's I guess the difference. The "radfems" are trying to suggest there's a major problem with sexual harassment at TAM. There isn't. It's been isolated incidents over the years. Part of the problem is lack of documentation afterward. That's the part that effects JREF's ability to respond and prevent "that guy" from coming again.

But right now there are enough procedures in place to solve the problem. Men who act this way are wrong. They should be handled. But without documentation it's hard to target specific offenders.

The solution is not to set out this broad policy directed at all men. it's to target the problem and stop it in it's tracks and prevent it from happening again.

Security can stop it in it's tracks. Documentation can prevent it from happening again.

Unless of course you treat men as complicit misogynists who are chomping at the bit for opportunities to harass women.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by truethat

...Here's the thing though, is the problem great enough to warrant spending energy time and money on this issue?

Realistically it seems the answer is no. The incidents are so few that just contacting security or anyone there seems to be able to solve the problem..

And yet, according to DJ female attendance at TAM is off by 50%.

I know I'm sounding like the proverbial broken record at this point, but I think this thread continues to lose sight of what the actual problem is: Women aren't attending TAM for some reason. The problem is not sexual harassment at TAM, although it may be the cause of the problem, or one of them. But no one knows for sure, because I've yet to see a lot of effort being expended to find out in any meaningful way. There's plenty of speculation of course, ranging from women (justifiably or not) being concerned for their safety to it's all some sort of conspiracy to make JREF bow to some feminist agenda. And yet, the problem apparently remains.

If indeed female attendance at TAM is down by half, I think that's a major problem, one that very much warrants spending the effort to explore and hopefully fix.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, I've been making this same assessment of her for many, many pages on this thread:

So you've been consistently wrong. I'm certainly not a fan of all her antics, but I say this having met her a couple of times, as well as spoken to a number of her much closer friends.

[Kil]

Originally Posted by truethat

Here's the thing though, is the problem great enough to warrant spending energy time and money on this issue?

Realistically it seems the answer is no. The incidents are so few that just contacting security or anyone there seems to be able to solve the problem.

If the JREF includes in our packets a code of behavior, than they should also be responsible for followthrough. Is it worth the time and energy? Yeah. I think it is. And what money? Having the staff be responsive to these sorts of things is a good idea, even if the occurrences are rare. Rare is good.

The idea of making the rules more public is a good common sense approach and good PR. It should be posted on the "about" page or in some part of the registration area. And I'm not suggesting that a code of behavior be directed solely at men. It should be a general policy that covers everyone. If men behave badly more than woman do, that doesn't mean that a policy is sexist, as you seem to be implying.

Do you think the CFIcon warning is only there because they caved to what you call "rad fems?" I think it's just good policy to issue a public statement as the CFI has done in their About page. And I'll ask again, what can it hurt?

[WillyWonka]

I am not sure of the rules in Nevada, but in many places, you need to be licensed to act as a "bouncer" in a club, or an event. Those rules are there for safety and to make sure that the facility liability is reduced. I would be very surprised if Nevada would be different and that the Southpoint would allow another level of security besides their own.

There is also already security present on the floor, i.e. the people checking badges, I would not be surprised that they would the one being involved in case of any malfeasance in the event.

The frustrating issue that I see is that most harassment complains are outside the conference and happened in the casino, where JREF has absolutely no jurisdiction.

Is the issue that TAM is dangerous for women, or that going to Las Vegas is dangerous for women? I have not read anything that apply specifically to TAM but instead would apply to anyone that goes to places where large groups of people gather and drink lots of alcohol.

[TsarBomba]

Originally Posted by WillyWonka

I am not sure of the rules in Nevada, but in many places, you need to be licensed to act as a "bouncer" in a club, or an event. Those rules are there for safety and to make sure that the facility liability is reduced. I would be very surprised if Nevada would be different and that the Southpoint would allow another level of security besides their own.

There is also already security present on the floor, i.e. the people checking badges, I would not be surprised that they would the one being involved in case of any malfeasance in the event.

The frustrating issue that I see is that most harassment complains are outside the conference and happened in the casino, where JREF has absolutely no jurisdiction.

Is the issue that TAM is dangerous for women, or that going to Las Vegas is dangerous for women? I have not read anything that apply specifically to TAM but instead would apply to anyone that goes to places where large groups of people gather and drink lots of alcohol.

Not to mention the fact that last year (and this year) TAM was operated by a professional events operations company (as opposed to volunteers in the past), leaving yet another level of possible people to intervene, although I doubt very much any of them would be present at the Del Mar at any time.

[qayak]

Having now seen the offending "up-skirt apparatus" in a photograph from last year, I have decided my position needs to be updated.

I now believe the people who think BuzzO was taking up-skirt photos are morons are idiots lack reasoning skills.

That "stick," also known as a "hand held camera boom," is used in photography and film making, especially in self made films where distance from the subject/action is required for the viewer to get a proper perspective. I first saw them used in a film presented at the Banff Mountain Film Festival. Since then I have seen them several times.

BuzzO obviously knows something about photography and is using the boom to get good self made pictures with other TAM attendees and speakers. No one doing up-skirts would be that blatantly obvious knowing what the consequences are.

I can see now why security who checked out BuzzO did nothing. There was nothing to do. In fact, and to be fair, BuzzO is the one who was being harassed at TAM and it was his accusers who should have been removed from the venue by security.

Is it me or are skeptics these days more reactionary that the woo woos they claim to be smarter than? Very disappointing. I think Skepchicks should be renamed so we can tell the difference between real female skeptics and them.... "SkepDworks" perhaps?

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

And yet, according to DJ female attendance at TAM is off by 50%.

I know I'm sounding like the proverbial broken record at this point, but I think this thread continues to lose sight of what the actual problem is: Women aren't attending TAM for some reason. The problem is not sexual harassment at TAM, although it may be the cause of the problem, or one of them. But no one knows for sure, because I've yet to see a lot of effort being expended to find out in any meaningful way.

I've pointed this out repeatedly.

I seem to be one of very few people who are even willing to consider the possibility that a few people, who behave as if they have Cluster B personality disorders with psychotic features, are doing their damnedest to intimidate women from going to skeptic conference. The same people also like to call anyone who brings up this possibility "virulent anti-feminists."

I've also said, that if it were possible, the way to do it would be to get a bunch of women to together to talk about their experiences, maybe even on a panel, and try to get some sort of information about it. The trouble is that you therefore could not prima facie exclude women such as Paula Kirby, Stef Mc Graw, and Rose st. Clair, let alone hold them up for abuse ex cathedra by other women. The very idea massively pisses off the shriekers.

So the only practical alternatives are as follows:

1) Accept some sort of canned, preconceived explanation of the problem, which has the effect of keeping more women away.

2) Trying to do one's best, knowing that people who like 1 are going to try to stop it with all their power and will probably succeed in keeping women away anyway.

[Cleon]

The notion of Rebecca as a "man hater" is truly one of the more amusing claims made during this entire debacle. I mean, it's seriously giving me the giggles.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by epepke

I seem to be one of very few people who are even willing to consider the possibility that a few people, who behave as if they have Cluster B personality disorders with psychotic features, are doing their damnedest to intimidate women from going to skeptic conference.

Because it's *********** ridiculous. You're talking about people who are actively going to, speaking at, and raising money for women to go to various skeptic conferences. Somehow this is all a plot to intimidate them into not going to them? This is CT-level thinking, here.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Because it's *********** ridiculous. You're talking about people who are actively going to, speaking at, and raising money for women to go to various skeptic conferences. Somehow this is all a plot to intimidate them into not going to them? This is CT-level thinking, here.

It's a matter of historical record. Watson did misrepresent Paula Kirby. She did use her position to attack Stef McGraw and Rose st. Clair essentially ex cathedra. These are facts. You can't pretend this didn't actually happen. Well, you could, but actually saying so would come across as extremely stupid. I'm guessing that this is why you histrionically blather about CT-level thinking. Maybe if you put on a good enough show, people will stop thinking.

You seem to want to promote the idea that because they also raised money for certain women to go to TAM and other places, that means that they are "pro-women," and that this is great.

It's possible that you believe that "women" are a monolith, and that there are no important differences amongst them. It is also possible that you agree that only women with certain ideological preconceptions should be encouraged to speak. These, however, are really the only two logical choices.

If you had something approaching the honesty to admit this, then it would be one thing, but you apparently don't. So I'll expect to see more obfuscatory blather.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by epepke

It's a matter of historical record. Watson did misrepresent Paula Kirby. She did use her position to attack Stef McGraw and Rose st. Clair essentially ex cathedra. These are facts. You can't pretend this didn't actually happen. Well, you could, but actually saying so would come across as extremely stupid. I'm guessing that this is why you histrionically blather about CT-level thinking. Maybe if you put on a good enough show, people will stop thinking.

You seem to want to promote the idea that because they also raised money for certain women to go to TAM and other places, that means that they are "pro-women," and that this is great.

It's possible that you believe that "women" are a monolith, and that there are no important differences amongst them. It is also possible that you agree that only women with certain ideological preconceptions should be encouraged to speak. These, however, are really the only two logical choices.

If you had something approaching the honesty to admit this, then it would be one thing, but you apparently don't. So I'll expect to see more obfuscatory blather.

Well, when you have some evidence that the people who are speaking at, attending, and raising money for women to go to skeptical conferences are actually trying to intimidate women into not going, feel free to produce it.

Until then, this nonsense remains self-contradictory and ridiculous. And your attempts to divine things about me personally are entertaining, but completely off-base.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

And yet, according to DJ female attendance at TAM is off by 50%.

I know I'm sounding like the proverbial broken record at this point, but I think this thread continues to lose sight of what the actual problem is: Women aren't attending TAM for some reason. The problem is not sexual harassment at TAM, although it may be the cause of the problem, or one of them. But no one knows for sure, because I've yet to see a lot of effort being expended to find out in any meaningful way. There's plenty of speculation of course, ranging from women (justifiably or not) being concerned for their safety to it's all some sort of conspiracy to make JREF bow to some feminist agenda. And yet, the problem apparently remains.

If indeed female attendance at TAM is down by half, I think that's a major problem, one that very much warrants spending the effort to explore and hopefully fix.

Your numbers seem really wonky to me. But I'm willing to be wrong.

Prior to Rebecca Watson's request for more female speakers at TAM the attendance of women was at 20%

When Rebecca got involved it went UP to 40%

Then after Rebecca (or her groupies) started slamming JREF and spreading gossip and lies it dropped back down to 20%.

It hasn't technically dropped by half, over all. It's just gone back down to where it used to be.